By: Michael Vecchione
The notion of annexing Greenland was, for a time, seen as a joke even before the election this year. Yet, here we are, faced with the very real possibility that the United States may add it to its protectorate. This massive Arctic landmass, rich in natural resources and strategically located between North America and Europe, represents a compelling proposition for those who advocate expansion of American influence. At the same time, it poses considerable legal, cultural, and economic complexities. Any legitimate discussion of Greenland’s possible annexation demands a thorough examination of its potential advantages and potentially significant drawbacks.
Why would the United States want it in the first place? Some may see the land as a larger liability than it would be a benefit- it is a large Arctic landmass that would require military defense, increased expenditures to afford its citizens the rights and privileges of American citizens, and may have blowback from the international community for this brazen undertaking.
One of the greatest reasons, however, is the land’s strategic value. Greenland sits upon incredibly important shipping routes as climate continues to change, which has been allowing for greater shipping volume through the arctic. Gaining jurisdiction over Greenland would allow an annexing power to solidify its presence in the far north, where competition over resources and territorial claims continues to intensify.
Additionally, as the current administration and previous administrations posture that Russia continues to be the single most dangerous military threat that the United States faces, having yet another buffer and forward strategic presence away from our mainland is an enticing prize. The continued American military presence already at Thule Air Base in northwestern Greenland underscores the island’s enduring importance to U.S. national security. Proponents argue that formal control over Greenland would bolster the American defensive perimeter as Europe as a whole shows political and economic stagnation across the Eurozone. Essentially, the shrinking influence of our greatest allies require additional reassurances that our interests are protected. This, in itself, is an enticing prize.
From a purely resource-driven perspective, Greenland’s substantial reserves of resources add to its allure. Control over a massive exclusive economic zone exceeding two million square miles could offer a vital edge in securing critical materials and ensuring steady energy supplies. An exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a maritime zone extending up to 200 nautical miles from a coastal state’s baseline, granting that state exclusive rights to explore, exploit, conserve, and manage both living and nonliving resources within the zone. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) codifies these rights, enabling the coastal state to regulate fishing activities, authorize or prohibit mineral extraction, and oversee scientific research in its designated EEZ.
Notably, the EEZ expansion is another strategic win for the Trump administration and those beyond this. Greenland has extensive reserves of lithium, niobium, hafnium and zirconium, as well as an abundance of rare earth metals essential to current technological development and the reduction of dependence on fossil fuels. While the United States already has a memorandum of understanding with Greenland for resource exploration and development, it is not alone. China also does, and has holdings in multiple energy companies that are exploring the Greenland reservoirs. China’s recently tightened restrictions on the export of rare earth metals have underscored the inherent fragility in global supply chains for these absolutely critical materials that make daily life possible. By exercising its significant market control, China has effectively signaled its willingness to leverage raw material dominance in pursuit of strategic objectives. China continues to be the single most dangerous economic threat that the United States faces, and being able to exercise control over this is tantamount to pushing a threat out of a zone of influence through existing legal frameworks.
The Defense Production Act of 1950 and the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act of 2018 (FIRRMA), have the power to review, block, or condition foreign acquisitions and investments in U.S. businesses if it determines there is a credible national security risk, and the President can prohibit the acquisition or even require divestment of existing interests.
In the realm of natural resources, particularly those found on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), federal statutes like the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) grant the federal government oversight of exploration and production activities and requires any company seeking to drill, extract minerals, or engage in other resource-related operations within the U.S. EEZ must first obtain a lease or license from the federal government—typically administered by the Department of the Interior. If a foreign-controlled entity or a U.S. entity with significant foreign ownership poses a national security concern or contravenes U.S. policy interests, the federal government can refuse to grant, renew, or revoke the necessary leases and permits.
Additional powers reside in broader national security statutes. For instance, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) allows the President to impose economic sanctions or block certain transactions to address “unusual and extraordinary threats,” which could include foreign ownership in strategic or critical energy infrastructure. All of these mechanisms together allow for a very tight control over all these activities.
This all, frankly, sounds fairly good on its face. The acquire allows America to further secure its strategic goals with what seems like little drawbacks, but that is not entirely true. Chief among the drawbacks is the international law principle of self-determination, which places Greenland’s population and its own governmental institutions at the center of the annexation question. Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, has exercised self-governance through democratic processes such as the 1979 referendum granting home rule and the 2008 vote for increased autonomy. Any annexation would require approval from the island’s residents through a similarly transparent and legitimate referendum. Without this consent, the move would violate obligations under the United Nations Charter and likely be condemned by the international community. This may be toothless, however, given the recent years of egregious violations across the world by large swaths of nations. As my International Law professor said all those years ago, the first rule of International Law is there is no such thing as International Law.
Another disadvantage is the significant cultural and social impact that annexation could have on Greenland’s predominantly Inuit population. Greenland has a distinct historical and cultural relationship with Denmark, extending well beyond mere political ties. Many residents might balk at losing that connection and shifting their identity onto a new governance structure. Greenland’s small population of approximately 56,000 inhabitants – smaller than 13 Wards of Chicago – means that any annexation proposal falls far below the threshold of statehood for the United States. They would only be able to be a territory, which may be sour-tasting for the residents who have enjoyed relatively full autonomy since becoming an autonomous region.
Beyond cultural and social implications, the economic cost of modernizing Greenland’s infrastructure and providing adequate healthcare, education, and social services would likely be substantial. The United States would have to bear a substantial portion of these costs over an extended period, placing heavy demands on both financial and administrative resources.
Concerns involving Denmark’s reaction underscore another layer of complexity. Should Denmark find itself effectively losing sovereignty over Greenland, it might respond with counter-tariffs or other economic or political measures to safeguard its own interests. Such retaliatory tactics could include heightened duties on American goods entering Danish or EU markets, a potential restriction of Danish business operations within Greenland, or broader actions orchestrated by the EU.
Maersk, DSV, and Novo Nordisk are arguably the three most important Danish companies, with Maersk and DSV making up greater than 15% of total world shipping and Novo Nordisk being a massive economic force with its products like Ozempic single-handedly being the reason the Danish economy had positive growth this past year. Those tariffs would hit quite hard and should be a very serious consideration for any policy going forward.
Last but not least, one often-overlooked aspect of the unintended consequences for both the United States in its requirement to support the population and for the population itself is the likely application of the Jones Act to Greenland if it were subsumed as an American territory. The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, widely known as the Jones Act, restricts the shipping of goods between U.S. ports to vessels that are built, owned, and crewed by Americans.
In Greenland’s case, this would raise immediate logistical and economic challenges. At present, the island’s economy relies heavily on imports from Europe, especially Denmark, to meet essential needs. Subjecting Greenland to the Jones Act would limit its ability to use foreign (often more cost-effective) vessels, likely inflating shipping expenses and disrupting established trade networks. Critics of the Jones Act have long argued that it hampers the economies of U.S. island territories like Puerto Rico and the Pacific island holdings by driving up the price of consumer goods. Should Greenland be brought under Washington’s authority, similar economic difficulties could emerge unless legislative waivers or exemptions were granted, a reality that often encounters harsh pushback from the American maritime sector. Thus, the very law designed to bolster the U.S. maritime industry could ironically undercut the potential long-term economic viability of any new territory in the event of annexation.
This very real proposal has a wide range of potentially unconsidered positives and negatives. As it stands, there seems to be a bit more potentially positive outcomes for the American regime. The expansion of the American sphere of influence is, on its face, mostly positive in times of our allies in the Eurosphere experiencing economic and cultural hardships. We are also to enjoy more resource and military safety, squaring ourselves straight against our two largest perceived adversaries. The downsides could be significant, though, as the unknown variables of potential backlash from the rest of the world stage is not fully understood until it happens. However, with these knowns and unknowns set forth, the weight seems to be tilted in favor of a strategically genius move rather than a farce at this point in time.
About the Author
Michael has spent the past decade in various positions across the entertainment industry, from managing entertainers and their tours, to now shifting his focus to legal representation of those same entities. He still primarily practices in the entertainment, copyright, and trademark fields. Michael has received a Bachelor’s in Economics and Political Science from DePaul University and his J.D. from University of Miami.