NEWS
Trump wants Greenland back. And NATO is threatening itself.
July 2026
The facts
On July 7-8, 2026, at the NATO summit in Ankara, President Trump renewed the demand that the United States gain control of Greenland, an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark — a founding NATO member since 1949. This is a rerun of a crisis opened since his inauguration: in early 2026 Trump had refused to rule out the use of military force to annex the island, also threatening a 25% tariff on European goods if Copenhagen did not cede the territory; on January 21, at the Davos forum, he then backed down, pledging not to use force or tariffs. Meanwhile, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller had said the US has 'the right' to take Greenland, while his wife Katie Miller posted a map of the island covered by the American flag with the word 'SOON,' drawing widespread condemnation. Trump himself had said he 'doesn't need international law' and that it was a choice between 'taking Greenland or preserving NATO.' In Ankara, Frederiksen responded: 'We are sovereign states and we need everybody, allies included, to respect our territorial integrity.' Greenland's Foreign Minister, Múte Egede, wrote that the island's future 'is up to its people, as it has always been and always will be.'
Legal commentary
Threatening the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state is prohibited under Art. 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations, regardless of who states it. Here it is stated by the country leading NATO, against a founding member of the Alliance created precisely to protect its members' territorial integrity from external threats. Thomas Crosbie, a military expert at the Royal Danish Defence College, has said that an attempt to seize Greenland would constitute a criminal act, and that Denmark would have the right to arrest and prosecute any Americans involved; Danish troops in Greenland are legally obligated to defend national territory under a 1952 standing order. It should be said precisely: in the July remarks in Ankara, Trump did not explicitly repeat the threat of force — that dates to earlier in the year — but he reopened the demand for control after having pledged at Davos not to use it, in an oscillation that makes it hard to distinguish rhetoric from real threat.
Implications — the symmetry test
The criterion applied here — a threat to another state's territorial sovereignty violates Art. 2(4), whoever states it — is the same one this site applies to Russia over Ukraine. It does not change because it is stated by the leader of the power that leads NATO rather than a declared adversary: this is exactly the blind spot the symmetry test exists to illuminate. Denmark has not responded with equivalent threats, but by invoking international law and self-determination — there is no 'both sides' to balance here.
Fonti: The Hill · US News (AP) · Congressional Research Service · Atlantic Council