US President Donald Trump initially pursued Greenland with a firm stance, suggesting he would acquire it "the easy way or the hard way." However, his tone has recently softened following a more defiant response from European allies. After threatening tariffs on eight European countries to support his bid for the island, Trump announced he would refrain from imposing these tariffs, scheduled for February 1.
Constitutional Framework for Territory Acquisition
In a social media post, President Trump stated, "We have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region. This solution, if consummated, will be a great one for the United States of America and all NATO Nations. Based upon this understanding, I will not be imposing the Tariffs that were scheduled to go into effect on 1 February." This raises a critical question: would the US Constitution allow Donald Trump to acquire Greenland?
What Does the US Constitution Say?
The United States Constitution does not explicitly address the legal mechanisms for taking over foreign territory. However, it outlines the powers of Congress and the President regarding territory management. Article 4, Section 3 grants Congress the authority to admit new states and regulate US-owned territories and property. It specifies, "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress."
Furthermore, it states, "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State." Notably, this provision says nothing about acquiring foreign lands, leaving a gap in constitutional guidance.
Treaty Power and Historical Precedents
Article 2, Section 2 of the US Constitution empowers the President "to make Treaties" with the advice and consent of the Senate. According to reports, the Trump administration would need to ratify a treaty with Denmark and Greenland to annex the island. Historically, the US attempted to purchase the Virgin Islands from Denmark, facing hurdles in both the US Senate and Danish parliament before finally succeeding in 1917 for $25 million in gold. If a treaty is signed, it would require approval from at least two-thirds of the Senate, or 67 senators.
Diplomatic Reactions and Strategic Implications
Donald Trump has ruled out the use of force in his recent speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, emphasizing, "People thought I would use force, but I don't have to use force. I don't want to use force. I won't use force." However, he issued a warning to NATO countries, stating, "So we want that piece of ice for world protection. You can say 'Yes', and we will be very appreciative, and you can say 'No,' and we will remember."
Potential Payments and Local Sentiment
Reports indicate that US officials have discussed sending lump-sum payments to Greenlanders, ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per person, to encourage secession from Denmark and potential US integration. While details remain unclear, this strategy aims to sway the 57,000 residents of Greenland.
Denmark and Greenland's Response
Denmark and Greenland have firmly rejected Trump's attempts to take over the island, which he justifies for national security and to counter threats from Russia and China in the Arctic. Ahead of Trump's speech, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned, "We cannot negotiate on sovereignty, identity, borders, or democracy; this is a question of the world order, the worst may still be ahead of us, and if someone starts a trade war with Europe, we will, of course, respond. This is a dark chapter we are finding ourselves in." Greenland, a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, manages domestic affairs, while Denmark handles defence, foreign policy, and international representation.
In summary, Trump's ambition for Greenland faces significant constitutional, diplomatic, and political challenges, with historical precedents highlighting the complexities of such acquisitions. The softened stance reflects ongoing negotiations, but opposition from European allies and constitutional hurdles suggest a protracted process ahead.
