Title: Geopolitical Tensions, Congressional Oversight, and the Greenland Dilemma: The United States, Denmark, and Arctic Strategy in the Trump Era
Abstract
This paper examines the geopolitical, legal, and diplomatic implications of U.S. President Donald Trump’s public threats to acquire Greenland and the subsequent bipartisan legislative response. Focusing on the January 2026 congressional delegation to Denmark, the study analyzes how Trump’s assertions intersect with international law, NATO obligations, and the delicate balance of U.S.-Danish relations. It further explores the role of Congress in constraining executive authority and the broader implications for Arctic governance. By situating the issue within historical and legal frameworks, the paper underscores the complexities of Arctic resource competition and the evolving dynamics of U.S. foreign policy in the 21st century.
- Introduction
In January 2026, a bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers, led by Senators Chris Coons (D-DE), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Dick Durbin (D-IL), visited Denmark amid escalating tensions over Greenland. This diplomatic mission followed President Donald Trump’s repeated public assertions that the U.S. must acquire Greenland—either through purchase or force—to counter perceived Russian and Chinese expansion in the Arctic. Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Danish Kingdom, houses the Thule Air Base, a critical strategic asset. This paper evaluates the geopolitical stakes, legal controversies, and congressional response to Trump’s Greenland proposal, emphasizing the interplay between executive ambition and legislative oversight. - Geopolitical Significance of Greenland
Greenland’s strategic importance is multifaceted. Its location in the Arctic provides a vantage point for monitoring polar regions, critical for climate change research and military surveillance. The Thule Air Base, the northernmost U.S. military installation, plays a key role in missile defense and Arctic operations. Furthermore, Greenland possesses vast mineral resources, including rare earth elements essential for modern technologies such as renewable energy systems and defense equipment. As Arctic ice recedes due to global warming, access to these resources and strategic waterways becomes increasingly contentious among global powers.
Trump’s fixation on Greenland reflects broader U.S. strategic goals in the Arctic: countering Russian military buildup and Chinese infrastructure investments in the region. However, his rhetoric—coupled with the absence of a formal legal pathway for acquisition—risks destabilizing regional alliances and violating principles of state sovereignty.
- Legal and Diplomatic Implications
The attempted acquisition of Greenland raises profound legal questions. Under international law, Greenland is an integral part of the Kingdom of Denmark, with its constitutional provisions granting it autonomy but not independence. The UN Charter’s prohibition of the use of force (Article 2(4)) and the principle of non-intervention (Article 2(7)) render any unilateral U.S. action, whether coercive or through purchase, legally untenable without Danish consent. Trump’s threats to bypass Danish sovereignty not only contravene these norms but also risk undermining NATO cohesion by alienating a key ally.
Diplomatically, the U.S. faces a dilemma: while Greenland’s mineral wealth and strategic value are compelling, pressuring Denmark through aggressive diplomacy could erode trust within the alliance. Denmark’s explicit refusal to sell Greenland underscores the political and moral weight of sovereignty in post-colonial geopolitics.
- U.S.-Danish Bilateral Relations
The U.S.-Denmark relationship, historically anchored in shared NATO commitments and democratic values, faces unprecedented strain. Denmark, a steadfast U.S. ally, has historically relied on American security guarantees for regional stability. However, Trump’s Greenland proposal risks reframing this partnership through a lens of transactional imperialism.
The January 2026 congressional delegation, organized by Coons and Tillis, sought to reaffirm Congressional support for Danish sovereignty while advocating for a peaceful resolution. Senator Tillis’ assertion—“Congress must stand united in supporting allies and respecting sovereignty”—highlighted the bipartisan rejection of Trump’s unilateralism. This diplomatic mission also signaled a recalibration of U.S. Arctic strategy, emphasizing collaboration over coercion.
- Congressional Legislative Response
As a check on executive power, the U.S. Congress proposed legislation to curtail Trump’s ability to unilaterally acquire Greenland. The bill, supported by both Democrats and Republicans, aimed to affirm that any territorial acquisition would require prior congressional approval and adhere to international law. This legislative effort echoed historical precedents, such as the War Powers Resolution (1973), which sought to limit presidential authority in military engagements.
The bill’s passage would reinforce the constitutional balance of powers by ensuring that foreign policy decisions align with broad legislative and public consensus. It also underscored Congress’s role in safeguarding diplomatic relations, as hasty executive actions could jeopardize alliances and U.S. credibility.
- Conclusion
The Trump administration’s Greenland dilemma epitomizes the tension between executive overreach and congressional restraint. While Trump’s rhetoric reflects contemporary security concerns in the Arctic, it also exposes the risks of adopting a transactional approach to international relations. The bipartisan congressional visit to Denmark and subsequent legislative efforts illustrate the enduring importance of checks and balances in U.S. governance.
This case also highlights the Arctic’s growing geopolitical significance in an era of climate change and resource scarcity. For Denmark, Greenland’s status as an autonomous yet Danish territory reinforces the resilience of post-colonial sovereignty norms. For the U.S., the episode serves as a cautionary tale about the limits of unilateralism in a multipolar world. Ultimately, the resolution of the Greenland issue will require a nuanced balance of strategic interests, legal integrity, and respect for international cooperation.
References
(While this paper is based on a hypothetical 2026 scenario, the following frameworks and historical precedents are cited for analytical context):
United Nations Charter, Articles 2(4) and 2(7).
Historical U.S. territorial acquisitions (e.g., Alaska Purchase, 1867).
NATO Strategic Concept (2010/2022).
War Powers Resolution (1973).
U.S. Congressional Research Service reports on Arctic security.
Academic literature on executive-legislative dynamics in foreign policy.