Donald Trump’s plan to grab Greenland has the uncommon distinction of concurrently combining grave injustice, huge illegality, and excessive counterproductive stupidity. The identical is true of his more recent effort to impose tariffs on eight European international locations opposing the plan.
Let’s begin with first ideas. Because the Declaration of Independence states, authorities needs to be based mostly on the “consent of the ruled.” No real-world government is fully consensual. However a US conquest would make the federal government of Greenland much less consensual than it’s now. Polls indicate some 85% of Greenlanders oppose annexation by the US, whereas solely 6% assist it. In the 2025 Greenland election, the overwhelming majority of them voted for events that assist both independence or continued rule by Denmark.
Forcible annexation might maybe be justified if it had been the one solution to cease some type of extreme oppression. However there may be nothing like that in Greenland. Neither is there any cause suppose that US rule can be considerably higher when it comes to defending numerous human rights than the present mixture of Danish rule and intensive regional autonomy.
Along with being unjust, US conquest would additionally clearly be unlawful. It will, in truth, be a conflict of aggression much like Russia’s assault on Ukraine. The Nuremberg tribunal ruled that beginning a conflict of aggression is “the supreme worldwide crime,” and this was one of many essential fees on which most of the Nazi defendants had been convicted. Denmark has owned Greenland for hundreds of years and its sovereignty over that territory is universally acknowledged, together with by the US in a 1917 agreement, during which the US accepted the “extension” of Danish management over all of Greenland.
The initiation of conflict – maybe even an unlawful conflict – can typically be justified for the aim of eradicating a brutally oppressive regime. However, once more, Danish rule in Greenland is nothing like that.
A conflict of aggression to beat Greenland would violate US legislation, in addition to worldwide legislation. The US and Denmark are each signatories to the North Atlantic Treaty, which established NATO. Article V of that treaty requires the events to come back to one another’s protection within the occasion of an “armed assault” towards any of them, in Europe or North America. If the US is required to assist defend Denmark towards assault, it’s apparent that it additionally has an obligation to not assault Denmark’s territory itself.
Underneath Article VI of the Constitution, “all Treaties made, or which shall be made, underneath the Authority of america, shall be the supreme Regulation of the Land.” Thus, Trump and different US officers are required to obey each the North Atlantic Treaty and the 1917 treaty recognizing Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland.
These factors all nonetheless apply if Trump’s plan is “merely” to make use of the specter of power to coerce Denmark into promoting Greenland. Utilizing the specter of an unjust and unlawful conflict to take one other nation’s land is itself unjust and unlawful. It is a type of worldwide extortion scheme.
Along with being unjust and unlawful, the plan to grab Greenland can also be extremely silly and counterproductive. The main official rationale is the supposed want to guard Greenland from seizure by Russia and China. However these international locations haven’t any forces within the area that would probably take it. Furthermore, within the unlikely occasion {that a} real menace had been to materialize, an existing agreement with Denmark already permits the US to station as many troops in Greenland because it wants for protection. Within the occasion of assault, the 2 nations might additionally name on the help of the opposite NATO states.
If Trump actually wished to counter Russia, he would be part of with different NATO allies in backing Ukraine. If Russia is defeated in Ukraine, and even simply stays slowed down there, it can’t pose a lot of a menace to Greenland or another NATO territory. As an alternative, Trump has been betraying Ukraine and undermining NATO by threatening an ally’s territory. Such strikes truly assist Russia and our different enemies, relatively than hinder them.
An assault on Greenland would predictably alienate the allies, and severely undermine the alliance, if not destroy it fully. The lack of our most necessary allies would weaken the US and strengthen our enemies excess of proudly owning Greenland might probably profit us. Denmark itself is a longtime steadfast ally, and sent some 10,000 troops to assist us in Afghanistan. If we betray an in depth, longstanding ally in such an egregious method, different allies will see they can not depend on us, and can draw the apparent conclusions.
One other doable rationale for Trump’s transfer is acquiring Greenland’s mineral wealth. However we will way more simply get hold of entry to it via the easy mechanisms of commerce and funding, to which Denmark and Greenland are open. In any occasion, any financial or strategic achieve right here is way outweighed by the immense hurt of alienating all our allies.
What’s true of Trump’s plan to beat Greenland can also be true of his more recent plan to impose 10% tariffs (slated to extend to 25% on June 1) on eight European nations opposing his effort. Utilizing such financial coercion to advertise an unjust purpose is an extra injustice. Along with unjustly punishing the European allies, it should additionally hurt quite a few US companies and customers, a lot as Trump’s earlier tariff will increase are doing.
This use of tariffs can also be unlawful. The possible mechanism Trump intends to make use of is Worldwide Emergency Financial Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA). As I’ve pointed out before, IEEPA would not authorize tariffs in any respect (the phrase is not even talked about within the statute). As well as, IEEPA can only be used to counter an “uncommon and extraordinary menace” to America’s economic system, nationwide safety, and overseas coverage.
There’s nothing uncommon and extraordinary about Danish rule over Greenland. It has existed for hundreds of years! Nor, for causes famous above, does it pose any type of menace to the US. The utter ridiculousness of claims on the contrary is yet one more instance of why courts should not defer to executive invocations of extraordinary emergency powers, however relatively ought to require the chief to show the claimed emergency triggering using extraordinary authority truly exists. In any other case, emergency powers would develop into clean checks the president can use at any time when he feels prefer it, which is the precise reverse of how emergency powers are alleged to work.
Within the occasion there may be uncertainty about what IEEPA means, the “main questions” doctrine, which requires Congress to “communicate clearly” when authorizing the chief to make “choices of huge financial and political significance,” mandates a narrow interpretation right here. Tariffs imposed for the aim of facilitating a conflict of conquest that might have the impact of undermining America’s most necessary alliance are fairly clearly a difficulty huge financial and political significance.
Moreover, if IEEPA actually is a clean verify for the president to impose tariffs in any scenario he needs, the legislation would develop into unconstitutional. It would violate the nondelegation doctrine, which limits the extent to which Congress can switch its powers to the chief.
These and different points associated to IEEPA are among the many questions at the moment being thought of the Supreme Courtroom in the tariff case during which I’m one of many attorneys for the plaintiffs. If we prevail, it might stop Trump from utilizing IEEPA to attempt to assist him seize Greenland, as nicely.
Trump might potentially instead rely on Section 232 of the Commerce Enlargement Act of 1962, which allows imposition of tariffs against imports that the Division of Commerce investigates and concludes “threaten to impair” nationwide safety. However, as with IEEPA, the declare that nationwide safety is threatened by imports right here is absurd. If it had been to be accepted by courts, Part 232 would additionally develop into a clean verify for limitless government imposition of tariffs. Right here, too, the foremost questions and nondelegation doctrines would weigh towards the administration’s place. The supposed menace is right here is just not truly the imports themselves, however Denmark’s refusal to switch Greenland to the US. And the declare that that may be a menace can also be ridiculous.
Lastly, imposing huge tariffs on NATO allies in an effort to strain them to desert Denmark is yet one more silly and counterproductive transfer. It, too, alienates allies and undermines US nationwide safety excess of it might probably profit it. Having quite a few European states as allies is infinitely extra helpful than something we might get from proudly owning Greenland.
