The Greenland Gambit: Annexationism and the Assault on Democratic Ideals

Introduction: A Historical Precedent or a Dangerous Departure?

The history of American territorial expansion is a complex tapestry woven with threads of ambition, opportunity, and often, controversy. From Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase in 1803 to the Alaska Purchase in 1867, the United States has grown through acquisitions that reshaped its geographic and political landscape. These historical episodes, while foundational, are often viewed through a critical lens today, acknowledging the profound implications for indigenous populations and international norms. Now, President Donald Trump’s expressed desire to acquire Greenland—a territory larger than any previous U.S. land acquisition—threatens to reopen a chapter of expansionism that most believed was closed. At over 836,000 square miles, Greenland’s size is staggering, but the implications of forcibly annexing it are even more profound, challenging the very principles of sovereignty, self-determination, and democratic governance that the United States purports to uphold.

The Facts: What the Article Reveals

According to the article, President Trump’s fixation on Greenland is rooted in a combination of perceived national security threats from Russia and China and, more pointedly, a fascination with its sheer territorial grandeur. Historian David Silbey of Cornell University notes that Trump, as a ‘real estate guy,’ is driven by the allure of ‘grabbing that much land,’ framing it as ‘THE MOST LAND EVER.’ This ambition is not isolated; it echoes past comments about taking back the Panama Canal, musing that Canada could become America’s 51st state, and even discussing the takeover of Gaza. Scholar Daniel Immerwahr of Northwestern University observes that Trump’s ‘annexationist ambition’ harks back to presidents like Polk and Teddy Roosevelt but is unprecedented in the post-1945 era, a period defined by respect for national borders and international cooperation.

The article details how Trump has dismissed the importance of existing defense pacts with Denmark, which already grant the U.S. military access to Greenland, and instead insists that ownership is ‘psychologically needed for success.’ His remarks—such as doing it ‘the easy way’ or ‘the hard way’—suggest a willingness to bypass diplomatic norms. Meanwhile, Greenlanders, led by voices like former parliament member Aqqaluk Lynge, have rebuffed the idea outright, with Lynge stating that even a hypothetical offer of a million dollars per resident would be rejected because ‘We don’t sell our souls.’ This emotional response underscores the profound disrespect inherent in treating a people and their homeland as a commodity.

The Context: Sovereignty and Self-Determination in the 21st Century

Greenland has been part of the Danish Kingdom for over 300 years, and its status as a self-governing territory within the Kingdom reflects a modern understanding of autonomy and partnership. The idea of the U.S. acquiring Greenland is not new—it was floated in 1867 and 1946—but it never materialized, in part because of evolving global norms that prioritize consent and sovereignty. In the 21st century, the international community largely rejects forcible annexation as a relic of colonialism, instead championing the rights of peoples to determine their own political futures. The United Nations Charter, which the U.S. helped draft, explicitly affirms the principle of self-determination and prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of any state.

Yet, Trump’s rhetoric ignores this context, reducing Greenland to a transactional asset. His comments reflect a broader pattern of undermining alliances and international institutions, from withdrawing from the Paris Agreement to questioning NATO. By treating Greenland as a piece of real estate, he not only insults Denmark, a longstanding ally, but also dismisses the agency of Greenland’s 57,000 residents. This approach risks alienating partners at a time when global challenges—from climate change to authoritarian threats—demand cooperation, not coercion.

Opinion: The Moral and Democratic Crisis of Annexationism

As a firm supporter of democracy, freedom, and liberty, I find President Trump’s Greenland gambit not just politically misguided but morally reprehensible. The very idea of acquiring territory ‘whether they like it or not’ is antithetical to the principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, which celebrate consent of the governed and the right to self-determination. If the United States forcibly annexes Greenland, it would not be an act of strength but of profound weakness—a betrayal of the ideals that have made America a beacon of hope for generations.

First, this proposal represents a dangerous resurgence of imperialistic thinking. Historians rightly draw parallels to figures like President James K. Polk, whose expansionist policies led to the Mexican-American War and the annexation of vast territories. But the 19th-century context of Manifest Destiny cannot justify 21st-century actions. Today, we understand that territorial acquisition without consent is a form of oppression, one that disregards the rights and dignity of the people living there. Trump’s casual dismissal of Danish sovereignty and Greenlanders’ voices echoes the worst excesses of colonialism, where powerful nations treated less powerful ones as pawns in a geopolitical game. This is not leadership; it is bullying, and it stains America’s global reputation.

Second, the national security rationale—citing threats from Russia and China—is deeply flawed. The United States already has a defense agreement with Denmark that guarantees military access to Greenland, including the Thule Air Base. By insisting on ownership, Trump conflates security with domination, suggesting that control over land is the only way to ensure safety. This misunderstands modern security dynamics, which rely on alliances, intelligence sharing, and diplomatic engagement. Forcibly taking Greenland would likely escalate tensions with Russia and China, isolating the U.S. and undermining the very security he claims to prioritize. Moreover, it sets a dangerous precedent: if the U.S. can annex territory for ‘security’ reasons, what stops other nations from doing the same? This could unravel the international order that has prevented large-scale conflicts since World War II.

Third, the human cost of this proposal cannot be overstated. Aqqaluk Lynge’s statement—‘We don’t sell our souls’—is a poignant reminder that land is not just territory; it is home, culture, and identity. To reduce Greenlanders to bargaining chips in a real estate deal is dehumanizing, violating the basic respect for human dignity that should underpin all policy. As a humanist, I believe that policies must prioritize people over power, and consent over coercion. Trump’s approach does the opposite, treating Greenlanders as objects rather than subjects of their own destiny. This is not just un-American; it is anti-human, and it must be condemned in the strongest terms.

Finally, this episode reflects a broader pattern of undermining democratic institutions and the rule of law. Trump’s willingness to bypass diplomatic channels and dismiss existing agreements shows a contempt for the processes that ensure stability and justice. If pursued, this gambit would likely involve legal and constitutional challenges, further eroding public trust in governance. As a staunch supporter of the rule of law, I believe that adherence to legal and ethical norms is what distinguishes democracies from dictatorships. By flouting these norms, Trump risks dragging America down a path toward authoritarianism, where might makes right and the powerful trample the weak.

Conclusion: Upholding Principles in the Face of Expansionist Temptation

The debate over Greenland is about more than just land; it is a test of America’s soul. Will we uphold the values of democracy, freedom, and liberty, or will we succumb to the siren song of imperial ambition? The answer must be a resounding defense of principle. The United States should reject any notion of forcible annexation, reaffirm its commitment to alliances like the one with Denmark, and champion the right of Greenlanders to determine their own future. This is not only the morally right course but the strategically wise one, as it strengthens America’s leadership in a world hungry for stability and justice.

As citizens, we must hold our leaders accountable, insisting that foreign policy reflect the best of American ideals—not the worst of historical excesses. The Greenland gambit is a wake-up call, reminding us that vigilance is the price of liberty. Let us choose a path of respect, cooperation, and human dignity, ensuring that America remains a nation that inspires hope, not fear.