Outline:
When US President Donald Trump mentions the acquisition of Greenland, it’s easy to regard the notion as yet another provocation — part jest, part declaration, soon to be overlooked.
That would be an error. The suggestion lacks legal, political, or strategic justification. However, it is insightful. Not because it is ever likely to occur, but because it highlights a more fundamental change in how power, independence, and international structure are currently being presented.
Trump initially proposed the concept of “purchasing” Greenland in 2019, and he has brought it up again recently, along with a 20-day timeframe.
Every time, the reply has been quick and clear: Greenland is not up for sale; Denmark is not selling; the issue is settled. Still, the concept keeps coming up. Why?
The possessions of empires no longer remain.
To grasp why the Greenland proposal is inherently impractical, one needs to begin with its historical background.
Indeed, the United States has acquired territory in the past. Alaska was obtained from Russia in 1867. The Danish West Indies — now known as the U.S. Virgin Islands — were acquired from Denmark in 1917 for $25 million in gold.
These examples are frequently used by Trump and his supporters of the “Make America Great Again” movement to argue that acquiring territory through buying is typical, and even reasonable.
However, these transactions occurred in a vastly different era: a colonial, pre-1945 global system, prior to the United Nations Charter, before contemporary principles of sovereignty, and before the right of nations to self-determination emerged as a fundamental aspect of international law.
In such instances, regions were considered as possessions of empires. The local inhabitants had minimal or no influence. This legal and ethical structure is no longer in place.
Greenland today is not a colonial settlement that is awaiting transfer. It is an autonomous region with its own legislative assembly, administration, and political discussions.
Essentially, the people of Greenland possess an acknowledged right to self-determination if they decide to pursue it. Any effort to “sell” Greenland would breach not only international law, but also the democratic rights of its inhabitants.
Sovereignty is not something that can be bought, sold, or valued like a product.
Jump from strategic significance to land expansion
The concept also fails from a political perspective. Denmark is a reliable democracy, a member of NATO, and a strong ally of the United States.
The idea that Washington could acquire land from Copenhagen is part of a nineteenth-century strategy, rather than modern alliance politics.
Such a move would be politically explosive in Denmark, unacceptable in Greenland, and deeply destabilising within NATO itself.
Another perspective is the strategic argument, frequently cited as the most compelling reason. It is claimed that Greenland is significant due to its position in the Arctic, rivalry among major powers, rare earth minerals, shipping lanes, and missile defense.
All of this is accurate. What is incorrect is the assumption that strategic significance leads to territorial takeovers.
The United States already has broad strategic access to Greenland. It maintains military bases there, gains from intelligence systems, and collaborates with Denmark on Arctic security.
Acquiring ownership would provide minimal operational benefits but significantly raise political expenses. Strategically, purchasing Greenland would be unnecessary; from the viewpoint of managing alliances, it would be self-defeating.
So, why does this concept continue to exist? Because it aligns with a specific perspective: one that views global interactions as a series of agreements, strategic advantages, and win-lose scenarios.
In this “Trumpian” view of global politics, strength is shown by having, managing, and displaying power. The terminology of property takes the place of diplomatic language. Authority is mixed up with ownership.
This is more than just an individual preference. It indicates a wider decline in the post-war global system, where rules, organizations, and common standards are increasingly being undermined by the use of force and power dynamics.
In this context, Greenland is more of a symbol than a policy suggestion: a means of expressing authority, frustration with limitations, and longing for an era where power dictated outcomes.
Regulations are under evaluation, but should not be twisted.
In Europe and the UK, this is significant. It’s not due to Greenland possibly changing ownership, but rather because it highlights the type of geopolitical landscape we are currently navigating.
A setting where allies are discussed in terms of transactions, where sovereignty is verbally diminished, and where strategic conversation uses the terminology of acquisition instead of collaboration.
The actual issue, therefore, is not whether the United States has the ability to purchase Greenland. It does not. The real issue is how Western democracies will react to a geopolitical environment where such suggestions are even considered.
The task is to protect independence without falling into inaction; to handle rivalry without giving up on legal principles; and to keep partnerships strong in a world where self-interest is becoming dominant again.
Greenland is not available for purchase. However, the episode serves as a reminder that the rules of the game are under scrutiny. And becoming complacent about these rules would be the most expensive error of all.
Aurélien Colson holds the position of political science professor and serves as co-academic director at the Institute for Geopolitics & Business within ESSEC Business School.