Donald Trump threatens to secure Greenland ‘one way or another’: can he do it?

Hours after the address, Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Bourup Egede responded via Facebook, posting: “Kalaallit Nunaat is ours”, pointedly using the Greenlandic name. The translation is: “Greenland is ours.”

Australia is nearly four times the size of Greenland, which – while geographically small at 2.166 million km² – is rich in natural resources. Greenland is the largest of three of Denmark’s constituencies, including Denmark and the Faroe Islands. In each of these territories, residents are full citizens of Denmark. The Home Rule Act (1979) was enacted as a response to the January 1979 Greenlandic referendum, in which 70.1 per cent of the voters were in favour of increased autonomy. This Act resulted in the formation of the Greenlandic parliament, which exercises control and regulatory decisions regarding certain mining activities.

LSJ called upon experts to explain Trump’s motivations in pursuing Greenland, what legal avenues he has to meet these goals, what other means he could use, and the consequences of a forcible acquisition of Greenland.

Donald R. Rothwell is Professor of International Law at the Australian National University (ANU) College of Law, Governance and Policy.

He says, “President Trump has focused on two particular dimensions with respect to Greenland. One is the rare earth minerals that Greenland is known to possess, and which we know that the Trump administration is keen to get access to. That has also become a core issue with respect to the negotiations with Ukraine, in which Ukraine is being asked – as part of the US security guarantee – to sign away access to rare earth minerals. And one of the reasons why the United States is particularly interested in rare earth minerals is because of the growing strategic competition with China for access to and the exploitation of rare earth minerals.

“Because of the relatively remote nature of Greenland, and because it’s been relatively undeveloped with respect to mining, I think the United States sees it as being a potential mining development opportunity which hasn’t really been exploited by anyone at any significant level.”

Greenland’s riches include valuable rare earth minerals

China and the US are in a long-running trade and tariff battle, recently intensified by President Trump’s near-doubling of existing tariffs on imports from China. It is evidently a pain point for Trump that China has a near-monopoly over rare earth minerals and it has recently banned the export of these to the US. Though China produces 60 percent of the world’s rare earth minerals, it processes 90 percent. It has been estimated that Greenland could produce up to 25 percent of the world’s rare earth mineral demands, if the present strict mining laws were rolled back.

According to the US-based Pulitzer Centre, the value of rare earth minerals in Greenland is in the billions of dollars. A change of government in 2021 led to more stringent rules regarding mining operations, so in reality, the potential value of mining in Greenland has not been realised. It is an ongoing source of debate between the public and the government, owing to concerns about the environmental impact of mining and the contrasting desire for greater wealth. In 2021, Greenland’s government banned uranium mining. Australian mining firm Energy Transition Minerals (ETM) – formerly Greenland Minerals – had been seeking approval to mine in Southern Greenland, having invested into preparations for the prior 15 years, but its rights to the Kvanefjeld site (Kuannersiut in Greenlandic) project were revoked upon the introduction of new uranium bans. Greenland Minerals has sought $US11.5 billion in compensation, initially via arbitration through the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), and then in court. As the Guardian reported, “ISDS was designed to protect foreign businesses from state corruption and theft, but it is increasingly being used to sue governments that bring in environmental laws to meet climate targets or protect biodiversity and the environment.”

The site in contention is home to high concentrations of metals such as terbium and neodymium, which are used to manufacture magnets used in wind turbines and electric cars. As reported by the Guardian, Greenland has suffered mining pollution with long-term consequences: lead and zinc mines developed in the 1970s are still polluted to this day. The ecosystem is home to seals, whales and other marine life, vital to the livelihoods of Inuit hunter-gatherers.

US, Russia, and China in the Arctic

Rothwell says, “The second dimension is that Trump has identified the presence of Chinese and Russian vessels in and around Greenland. Russian vessels operating near, or off, the Greenland coast is really not extraordinary, because Greenland’s in the Arctic and Russia is an Arctic state. Chinese vessels operating near and adjacent to Greenland is part of an ongoing interest that China has had in the polar regions, particularly in the Arctic, over the course of the last two decades.”

He explains, “So, the two dimensions are these: one is the strategic minerals dimension with respect to rare earth minerals. Secondly, there’s the geo-strategic competition, particularly with China, but also, more generally, with Russia.”

Tariffs could pressure Denmark to acquiesce to US demands

Trump may call upon the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which would provide broad authority to declare a national emergency to deal with unusual and extraordinary threats to, as the IEEPA outlines, “national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States” that originates “in whole or substantial part outside the United States.”

Rothwell says tariffs could be “a real prospect”.

He says, “In the first few weeks of the Trump administration, we’ve seen a clear interest and capacity to use tariffs and economic means to punish, threaten, and bully other states in terms of really submitting to US political and economic might. Denmark would certainly be susceptible to tariffs and other economic sanctions that could be imposed. However, once you take on Denmark, you’re taking on the EU, and I think even the United States would be cautious about the consequences that could flow on from targeting Denmark. There would be a concern in in in Europe that well, if we don’t support Denmark, who else will be subject to this sort of economic bullying.”

Still, Denmark holds a significant trump card. As a major exporter of pharmaceuticals, Denmark’s products are already in high demand. Danish company Novo Nordisk makes the diabetes drug Ozempic, which has been in constant demand for its weight loss results.

Greenlanders could declare independence and choose Trump

Rothwell says, “Hypothetically, Greenland could say ‘we’re going to declare independence on the first of April’, and on the second of April, an independent Greenland commences discussions with the United States to become a state, or have some level of association with the United States. The second approach is that Denmark, with the Greenland government, says, ‘the United States is making these offers, let’s have a referendum or a plebiscite to gain support for that’. There is, in fact, an election in Greenland coming up very shortly. It’ll be interesting to see what the outcomes of that are.”

The most likely option, were Greenland to enter an association with the US, is a free association status, under which the Greenlanders would retain their self-governance, but, as Rothwell says, “the United States would be responsible for defence, security and foreign affairs, and, no doubt, other concessions that the United States would be able to negotiate.”

Other territories that have free association with the US include the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Puerto Rico. Rothwell says, “The history of how Puerto Ricans were treated under the first Trump administration is telling.”

Following Trump’s address to Congress, Greenland’s Prime Minister declared in his Facebook post: “We don’t want to be Americans, nor Danes; We are Kalaallit. The Americans and their leader must understand that. We are not for sale and cannot simply be taken. Our future will be decided by us in Greenland.”

US media outlet, PBS quoted Denmark’s foreign minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, as saying he didn’t think Greenlanders wanted to separate from Denmark only to become “an integrated part of America.”

Rasmussen said, “I’m very optimistic about what will be a Greenlandic decision about this. They want to loosen their ties to Denmark. We’re working on that, to have a more equal relationship.”

Forcible annexing of Greenland would trigger an international crisis

Rothwell says, “Trump has spoken about using economic or military means to acquire Greenland. The most obvious military means is the United States annexes Greenland in the same way that Russia has served to annex parts of eastern Ukraine. The President issues one of his executive orders, suggesting that he’s going to annex Greenland, and then orders the US military to effectively take over Greenland.”

There’s already a US military base on Greenland, Pituffik Space Base, specifically for space surveillance, missile detection and missile defence.

Rothwell says, “It’s not a regular US Air Force or other military base, but I’m sure that it could be used as a staging point for any US military takeover. We know that Greenland is virtually undefended, and that this President seems to be quite open to using what he sees to be his presidential powers. So the cost of that is just inconceivable in terms of how that would be received and seen by the international community. That would absolutely break the Western alliances if the United States was to go down that track. The ramifications for Australia, from the perspectives of international relations, foreign policy, and even defence, are just unimaginable.”

An invasion would theoretically trigger NATO’s Article 5, which states that an attack against one member state is an attack against them all.

Rothwell says it would also breach the North Atlantic Treaty, and that, “in itself, could trigger other NATO partners coming to the military aid of Denmark.”

This, he adds, is “just completely inconceivable.”

“The most likely situation is that Trump “seeks to entice the Greenlanders to come over to the United States’ way of thinking, either through a unilateral declaration of independence, or gradually working towards independence in collaboration with Denmark, and then an independent Greenland saying ‘we’d now like to very much join up and have some sort of security, defence and economic relationship with the United States’.”