The U.S. military operation to arrest Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro in Caracas last week, without the loss of a single American life, impressed many (including me), not least the man who ordered it—U.S. President Donald Trump. But rather than de-escalating after a successful show of force, Trump has reinvigorated his long-standing ambition to seize Greenland, refusing to rule out the use of that same military might to invade and annex the autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark.
If Trump gave the order, I am confident that our armed forces would be able to occupy Greenland with little or no loss of life. But giving that order would be the worst foreign policy decision of my lifetime. We do not need to annex Greenland to accomplish our security and economic goals there. And doing so would dramatically undermine other, more critical American national interests. Even threatening to do so has already damaged America’s reputation abroad. It is time to stop this nonsense.
Trump and his team have claimed that annexing Greenland advances our national security reasons, at times referencing threats from China and Russia. Paradoxically, Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy, released in December 2025, does not describe Russia or China as enemies. But for the purpose of argument, let’s assume (as I happen to believe, by the way!) that Russia, in particular, as well as China, do pose threats to the United States. We can reduce these threats through other means, without annexation, like deploying more soldiers or opening more military bases in Greenland. Our democratic ally, Denmark, in close cooperation with the government of Greenland, would be eager to cooperate with us and respond to any such requests. After all, our two countries are members of the same alliance, NATO. We already have a military base in Greenland, and in the past, we have had many more. We have an agreement with the Kingdom of Denmark, dating back to 1951, that authorizes the United States to construct and operate military bases there. In fact, the United States has military bases worldwide that we operate without annexing them. Our 5th Fleet is based in Bahrain, providing deterrence to our adversaries in the Middle East. Our 7th Fleet is based in Japan, providing deterrence to our adversaries in Asia. We did not have to annex Bahrain or Japan to establish these bases. We can do the same in Greenland.
Another argument advanced by the Trump team for annexation centers on Greenland’s critical mineral resources. But if essential, we can obtain these much-needed critical minerals through trade and investment, not imperial annexation. That’s how we do it with other countries in the world. Why is that not the modality that the Trump team considers for gaining access to these minerals? Such contracts and investment agreements would also be a lot cheaper than invading or even buying Greenland. And such contracts and investments would be consummated by private companies, not the U.S. government, as they should be. Trump’s new policy to expand government ownership of companies is imprudent. As the Soviets demonstrated last century and the Chinese economy shows today, state-owned enterprises rarely outperform private companies.
Most importantly, invading Greenland would be very detrimental to other American national interests. Most obviously, our bilateral relations with Denmark would be damaged for a long time, if not indefinitely. Denmark has been a reliable democratic ally of the United States for many decades. When we were attacked on September 11, 2011, Denmark voted with the rest of our NATO allies to declare war on Al Qaeda and the Taliban to defend us. This marked the only time in NATO’s history that Article 5 was invoked—and it was in our defense. Roughly 10,000 soldiers fought alongside our soldiers in Afghanistan, including in heavy combat missions in Helmand Province. Denmark lost 45 soldiers in that war, on a per capita basis, one of the highest casualty rates of any country fighting there. More recently, in response to Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Denmark has provided major military equipment, including F-16s. An invasion of Greenland would mean a permanent loss of a strategically important partner for the United States on shared security interests.
Second, NATO—the most important security alliance for the United States—would be destroyed. Maybe some rump organization might linger on paper. But in reality, the invasion of a NATO member by another would end the alliance. Currently, NATO allies provide military bases and intelligence assets in the Arctic region that are vital for our defense there. In trying to acquire Greenland to open new military bases, we would be losing so much more in that region. More broadly, however, if we are in a new era of great power competition with China and Russia, we need allies! During the Cold War, we had better allies than the Soviet Union. They helped us win that last era of great power competition. To win our new era of great power competition in the 21st century, we need strong, enduring democratic allies again. Threatening to destroy NATO’s alliance for Trump’s vanity project in Greenland is irrational and dangerous.
Third, U.S. relations with all of Europe would suffer severe damage. In response to an illegitimate land grab, one can imagine all sorts of public responses from European countries, including the closing of military bases and intelligence operations in Europe, sanctions on American companies, and even restrictions on American travel to the continent. In our global competition with China, a great power contest that will likely last decades, we will do so without democratic Europe on our side.
Fourth, our imperial gambit in Greenland offers alibis for other wars of conquest and annexation. Putin, of course, would be thrilled. We would be acting just like him. If Xi Jinping ever decides to invade Taiwan, he would do so after we invade Greenland, knowing that we have no moral authority to criticize his decision. More broadly, citizens in Africa, Asis, Latin America, and the Middle East would perceive an American annexation of Greenland as an illegitimate, imperial conquest. And they’d be right. Our ability to work with the entire post-colonial world would be much more challenging.
Recently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has attempted to soften the threat, claiming that Trump is just threatening to invade to create leverage for the purchase of the territory. Is that really any better? Seems like a scene from The Sopranos to me. And poll numbers show that the citizens of Greenland are not interested in being bought!
19th-century imperialism, like other ideas from that era (i.e., slavery, denying women the right to vote, etc.), ended for a reason. It was immoral. Eventually, it was not profitable. And for some empires that tried to hang on—like the Portuguese and the Soviet—imperial overreach eventually triggered revolution at home. Trump’s dream of returning to that era is also unethical and won’t work. Even talking about it today is doing real damage to our reputation around the world, and especially in the free world. It’s time to end this stupid discussion now. If Trump cannot move past this fixation, Congress should pass a law that prevents the United States from invading a democratic ally. I guarantee it would pass easily.