Greenland

“DONALD TRUMP’S effort to annex Greenland, a Danish sovereign territory, is on hold. On January 28th, American, Danish and Greenlandic officials met to discuss a new “framework agreement” which Mr Trump had announced triumphantly in Davos. But there is little clarity about what it might involve.

 

In the days after the Davos discussions, there was chatter that America might secure so-called sovereign base areas on Greenland, pockets of American land covering sites like Pituffik Space Base. But officials in Copenhagen and Nuuk have reiterated that questions of sovereignty are not up for discussion. In an op-ed published on January 29th, Jeff Landry, Mr Trump’s envoy for Greenland, insisted that the agreement being discussed “will lead to the United States’ gaining total, unfettered access to the island”. That is far short of Mr Trump’s public demand for the “acquisition” of Greenland. It could suggest that talks are focusing on revisions to the 1951 treaty with Denmark which governs America’s presence on the island.

 

“I think Europe has learned some lessons over the past few weeks,” noted Mette Frederiksen, the Danish prime minister, visiting Emmanuel Macron, France’s president, in Paris. One is that Mr Trump can be deterred by standing firm. Mr Macron announced a new French consul to Greenland and gave a message in Greenlandic, the island’s Inuit language.

 

But Europeans ought not to be too gung-ho. The fact that their American ally had threatened NATO territory is extraordinary enough. The passivity of most Republicans in Congress in the face of Mr Trump’s bellicosity is also striking.

 

America’s founders gave Congress the power to declare war. Over time, however, the legislative branch has surrendered its authority to the commander-in-chief. The War Powers Act, passed in 1973 despite a veto by Richard Nixon, sought to limit the war-making ability of presidents, but it has rarely constrained them. Mr Trump offers the latest example. In the past year he has bombed Yemen and Iran, struck suspected terrorists in Somalia, Syria and Nigeria; blasted alleged narco-traffickers at sea; snatched Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s dictator; and threatened Colombia and Mexico. Throughout, he has ignored sporadic objections from the legislature.

 

Republican politicians know that incurring the president’s ire is a career-threatening act, given the devotion of the party’s MAGA base and the risk of being ejected in primaries. Those who speak up are either the few surviving mavericks, or those who have little to lose after announcing their intention to retire from Congress.

 

The Greenland saga has fitted this pattern. Republicans in Congress can be divided broadly into three groups, notes one staffer. Some supported the president’s neo-imperial quest outright. Among them was Ted Cruz, a senator with presidential aspirations. A few opposed it outright, such as Don Bacon, a member of the House of Representatives who warned that Mr Trump risked another impeachment. Most privately disagreed with the president but feared crossing him, or at least think private lobbying works better.

 

Mr Trump’s dominance of the party has been demonstrated anew as successive bills to prevent further military action against Iran and Venezuela without congressional approval have been defeated. On January 8th five Republican senators voted to advance a war-powers resolution on Venezuela. A furious Mr Trump declared that they “should never be elected to office again”. A week later two of them recanted; the resolution failed after the vice-president, J.D. Vance, cast a tie-breaking vote. A similar bill in the House was defeated when the vote ended in a tie.

 

The Greenland crisis has at least subsided. Marco Rubio, America’s secretary of state, said that the meeting of the American-Danish working group on January 28th would be a “regular process”—and one kept out of the public eye. Lars Lokke Rasmussen, Denmark’s foreign minister, said he was “slightly more optimistic” than he had been a week earlier. “Now we are back on track.” For now.” [1]

 

1. The art of the steal. The Economist; London Vol. 458, Iss. 9484,  (Jan 31, 2026): 35.