Trump, Territory, and Greenland: Mixed Claims for Ownership, Rights, and Control

Territory is a central topic in President Trump’s political program. In his second inaugural address on January 20, 2025, Trump declared that “The United States will once again consider itself a growing nation—one that … expands our territory."¹

This focus on territory has widely been interpreted in light of statements Trump made shortly before entering his second term in office concerning the United States’ ambitions for and claims to Canada, Panama, and Greenland. However, these are quite different cases. Canada is a big country, trading partner, and an important NATO ally. Trump’s comments on Panama are apparently more about his desire to control the Panama Canal.

The case of Greenland is special in that Trump apparently sees Greenland as a piece of territory that he wants to have as such. This raises several questions about what Trump wants in relation to Greenland, about his understanding of the legal and political status of Greenland, but also what the implied view of territory is and how Trump’s view of territory relates to how territorial issues have been discussed in political theory.

When we look at what Trump has said about Greenland, we can see that there are different claims about territory and different justifications for these claims. When Trump announced Ken Howery as his Ambassador to Denmark on December 22, 2024, he wrote on Truth Social that “For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.”²

At a press conference held at his Mar-a-Lago residence on January 7, shortly before taking office, when asked if he would rule out economic or military coercion to gain control of Greenland and the Panama Canal, Trump said that “I can’t assure you—you’re talking about Panama and Greenland—no, I can’t assure you on either of those two…But I can say this: We need them for economic security.” He went on to say that “We need Greenland for national security purposes,” and added that “People really don’t even know if Denmark has any legal right to [Greenland], but if they do they should give it up because we need it for national security.”³

Trump did not mention Greenland directly in his second inaugural address. But when he was speaking to reporters afterward in the Oval Office, while signing executive orders, Trump returned to the issue of Greenland saying, “Greenland is a wonderful place. We need it for international security. And I’m sure that Denmark will come along—it’s costing them a lot of money to maintain it, to keep it …The people of Greenland are not happy with Denmark, you know, I think they’re happy with us. We had representatives—my son and representatives went up there two weeks ago, and they like us. So we’ll see what happens.”⁴

From these examples, one can identify at least three different claims that Trump is making about territory, namely one about “ownership,” one about “control,” and one about “legal right.” There are, furthermore, different justifications for these claims, including 1) U.S. national security, 2) U.S. economic security, 3) international security, 4) the lack of a Danish legal right to Greenland, and 5) the supposed fact that Greenlanders are unhappy with being part of Denmark and want to be part of the United States. The first two justifications speak directly to Trump’s “America First” agenda, since they appeal solely to American interests. The third justification presents itself as appealing to broader interests. The last two justifications appeal to views about territorial rights.

For these reasons it is worth considering each claim and justification both in relation to what the actual situation is concerning Greenland and in relation to how these claims and justifications relate to debates about territorial rights.

Territory and Property

It is conspicuous that Trump speaks about territory as property. His claims about “ownership” (most recently even in relation to the Gaza Strip) echo his expressed interest during his first term in office in buying Greenland, which in 2019 he talked about as essentially a large real-estate deal.⁵

Trump’s idea of buying Greenland has historical precedent in how territories were bought and sold during the age of colonialism. When the United States purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867, there was also interest in buying Greenland, but this did not happen.⁶ The United States eventually bought the Danish West-Indies in 1917, which became the U.S. Virgin Islands. Incidentally, the United States recognized Danish sovereignty over Greenland as part of this transaction, and this was reaffirmed by the Permanent Court of International Justice in the 1933 verdict in the case concerning the Legal Status of Eastern Greenland.⁷

The idea that a place like Greenland can be bought actualizes one fundamental distinction and debate in the political theory of territorial rights. Here, territory is discussed, not just as a physical expanse, but as the geographical area in which a state has jurisdiction.⁸ “Jurisdiction” is understood as the right to create and enforce laws within the area in question, which might further involve additional rights, including the power to change the status of the territory and to control resources within the territory.

However, territorial rights understood as jurisdictional rights are not the same as property rights. Property rights are legal rights within a legal system, defined by jurisdiction. Even if a state makes the rules regulating property, this does not mean that the state owns the property thus regulated. And even if one owns some area, this does not mean that one has jurisdictional rights over the area.

The relation between territorial rights and property rights is a matter of debate in political philosophy. Lockean or libertarian theories understand territorial rights as based on property rights, while Kantian or liberal theories see territorial rights as primary and as preconditions for a system of property rights.⁹ To the extent that one can ascribe a theoretical view based on the noted statements, it seems that Trump’s view of territory is a Lockean one. But not only is this then a philosophically contested understanding of territorial rights, which has a hard time explaining the distinction between property and jurisdiction, it also clashes with legal and political norms in the international system.

Decolonization and Legal Right to Greenland

What is surprising about much of the debate surrounding the purchase of Greenland is that it largely flies in the face of recent historical trends. The process of decolonization following World War II made the idea of buying territories occupied by people seem outdated. The emerging norm in the UN system that all peoples have the right to self-determination meant that “The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations.”¹⁰

In terms of its political status, Greenland had become a Danish colonial possession in 1721. Under pressure from the process of decolonization initiated after the creation of the United Nations in 1945, Denmark sought to end this by incorporating Greenland fully in the Danish state.¹¹ The constitutional revision of 1953 meant that Greenland became part of the realm of Denmark, with two reserved seats in the Danish Parliament.

While Greenland was no longer formally a colony, there were still differences in the civil rights of Greenlanders who increasingly demanded equality at the individual level and self-determination at the collective level. In 1979, this resulted in the introduction of Greenlandic home rule. Greenlandic self-determination was taken even further by the Act on Greenland Self-Government in 2009, according to which Greenland can take over areas of authority and responsibility from the Danish authorities.¹² The Self-Government Act specifies that “Decision regarding Greenland’s independence shall be taken by the people of Greenland” and that “Independence for Greenland shall imply that Greenland assumes sovereignty over the Greenland territory.” This implies, in accordance with the UN norm of self-determination, that it is the people of Greenland who have the legal right to determine Greenland’s status.

So, Trump is doubly wrong when he remarked that people do not know if Denmark has any legal right to Greenland and that Denmark should give it up. He is wrong because Denmark does have a right to Greenland, in the sense that Greenland is part of Denmark, which the United States itself has recognized. He is also wrong in the sense that this is not something Denmark can unilaterally give up, because Greenlandic independence from Denmark is up to the people of Greenland.

Regarding Trump’s claim that the people of Greenland are not happy with Denmark and would like to become a part of the United States, Trump seems to have been misled by his own supporters’ social media campaign. The majority of Greenlanders (85 percent, according to a recent poll¹³) and Greenlandic politicians do not want to be Americans.¹⁴ Instead, they want increased independence from and continued cooperation with Denmark, either within the current arrangement or in some new form, for instance, in something like a free association relation, where Greenland is fully independent but still has special relations to Denmark.

Control – Security and Resources

Maybe this idea of acquiring Greenland is not really or primarily about ownership, legal rights, or the preference of Greenlanders, but about control. The justifications with reference to U.S. national and economic security suggest as much.

If so, the United States already has a high degree of control over Greenland from a security perspective. When Denmark was occupied during World War II, the Danish ambassador to the United States, Henrik Kauffmann, in 1941 signed the Greenland Treaty, granting the United States access to establish military bases in Greenland. Since then, the United States has had military control of Greenland. This was confirmed in the agreement concerning the defense of Greenland in 1951, which was reaffirmed in the Igaliku Treaty in 2004.¹⁵ This calls into question the need for the United States to acquire Greenland for security purposes since Greenland being part of Denmark and the Greenlandic people having the right to determine the status of Greenland has been thus far compatible with American control for military purposes.

Instead, is this play for Greenland a matter of access to resources, such as rare earth minerals? Greenland does have significant deposits. The mineral resource area is one field of responsibility assumed by the Greenland Self-Government under the Self-Government Act in 2010. Since then, Greenland and Denmark have together sought to attract foreign investments to start extracting minerals in Greenland, but so far with limited success. Denmark is not preventing development in Greenland, since this area has been taken over by Greenland. The problem so far has been a lack of American willingness to invest.

Trump’s appeals to U.S. security and economic interests thus do not take account of the actual state of affairs in Greenland. The worry in Denmark and Greenland is that this shows that Trump simply wants Greenland to expand U.S. territory, despite how this would run roughshod over the norm of self-determination that has been central to the international legal order established and defended by the United States in the post-war era. This would also be a return to the colonial idea of territory as something powerful states can buy or take by force, which implies a rejection of the very idea of territorial rights and a rejection of the legal equality of states and right to self-determination of peoples that is enshrined in the UN Charter.

—Sune Lægaard

Sune Lægaard, Ph.D., is Associate Dean of Education at the Department of Communication and Arts, Roskilde University, in Denmark. He works in political philosophy on issues of nationalism and multiculturalism and has published on debates on territorial rights. He is Editor-in-Chief of the journal Res Publica (published by Springer).