A Misguided Obsession
The idea of the United States launching a military intervention in Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark, feels like it came out of nowhere. Yet, it has lingered in political discourse, fueled by a handful of voices who see the Arctic island as a prize to be claimed. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries recently underscored a stark reality: there is no bipartisan appetite in Congress for such a reckless move. This absence of support isn’t a sign of weakness but a testament to a broader commitment to alliances, international law, and reason.
Greenland’s strategic value is undeniable. Its location, nestled between North America and Europe, makes it a linchpin for missile defense and Arctic surveillance, home to the critical Pituffik Space Base. But the notion of seizing it through force betrays a dangerous misunderstanding of how power works in the modern world. For those who champion cooperation over conquest, Jeffries’ statement is a clarion call to reject imperial fantasies and double down on diplomacy.
This debate isn’t new. It echoes back to 2019, when former President Donald Trump floated the idea of purchasing Greenland, only to be met with swift rebukes from Danish and Greenlandic leaders. Now, as Trump’s second term unfolds, the specter of unilateral action looms again, threatening to unravel decades of trust with allies. The stakes couldn’t be higher in a region where Russia and China are already flexing their muscles.
Advocates for a liberal vision of global leadership see Greenland not as a territory to dominate but as a partner in a shared fight for stability and sustainability. Military intervention would not only alienate Denmark, a steadfast NATO ally, but also undermine the very alliances that have kept the Arctic from becoming a battleground. It’s time to bury this idea for good.
The Arctic’s Real Challenges
The Arctic is no longer a frozen backwater; it’s a theater of intense geopolitical competition. Russia boasts over 100,000 troops, 40 icebreakers, and sprawling bases, while China’s Polar Silk Road initiative seeks economic footholds through partnerships with Moscow. The United States, by contrast, has a leaner presence, with key assets like Pituffik and a growing but limited icebreaker fleet. This disparity demands action, but not the kind that involves trampling allies.
A liberal approach prioritizes collective defense through NATO, which has been bolstered by the recent addition of Finland and Sweden. These nations bring expertise and proximity, strengthening the alliance’s ability to monitor and respond to threats. Congress has consistently backed such multilateral efforts, with overwhelming bipartisan votes for NATO expansion and aid to allies like Ukraine. Forcing our way into Greenland would fracture this unity, handing adversaries a propaganda victory.
Then there’s the environmental reality. The Arctic’s melting ice opens new shipping routes and resource deposits, but it also accelerates climate change, threatening Indigenous communities and global ecosystems. Liberal lawmakers have long argued that US policy must balance security with sustainability, supporting Greenland’s right to self-determination while investing in climate-resilient infrastructure. Military action, with its inevitable disruption, runs counter to these priorities.
Some Republican leaders, citing Denmark’s modest defense spending, argue that Greenland’s security gaps justify US intervention. They point to historical precedents, like America’s Cold War presence in Greenland, as proof of our right to act. But this ignores the modern context: Denmark is an ally, not an adversary, and Greenland’s people have made clear they want partnership, not subjugation. Clinging to outdated notions of territorial conquest only weakens our moral and strategic standing.
Congress as a Bulwark
Congress holds the constitutional power to authorize military force, a responsibility it has wielded to check executive overreach. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 ensures that presidents cannot sustain military actions without legislative approval, a safeguard that resonates deeply with those who value democratic accountability. Recent bipartisan efforts, like the 2020 resolution limiting force against Iran, show Congress’s willingness to assert its role.
On Greenland, lawmakers from both parties have signaled unity in opposition. Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, has joined Danish officials in affirming Greenland’s status as an ally, while Democrats like Jeffries emphasize the lack of support for intervention. Legislative proposals, such as the No Invading Allies Act, aim to explicitly bar unauthorized action, reflecting a consensus that force is neither necessary nor justified.
This stance aligns with public sentiment. Polls indicate that roughly 70% of Americans oppose annexing or invading Greenland, favoring cooperation over coercion. For those who see America’s strength in its alliances, Congress’s resistance is a powerful statement: our global leadership depends on trust, not tanks.
A Better Path Forward
The United States can secure its Arctic interests without resorting to military adventurism. The Department of Defense’s 2024 Arctic Strategy outlines a smart, sustainable approach: enhance surveillance, expand rotational deployments, and deepen ties with allies. Modernizing Pituffik Space Base and investing in icebreakers are practical steps that bolster security without alienating partners.
Engaging Greenland directly is key. Its government has expressed openness to economic and security cooperation, from joint research to infrastructure projects. By respecting Greenland’s autonomy and prioritizing shared goals, the US can counter Chinese and Russian influence while building a model for equitable partnerships. This is the liberal vision: power through collaboration, not domination.
As Trump’s administration tests the boundaries of alliances, the need for a principled stand grows urgent. Military intervention in Greenland would not only violate international law but also embolden adversaries who thrive on division. By choosing diplomacy, America can lead the Arctic toward a future of stability, sustainability, and shared prosperity.