...
By Ellie Cook
Senior Defense Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
A Republican congressman has introduced a bill that would pave the way to the U.S. annexing Greenland and absorbing the strategic Arctic territory.
The move has sparked concern among international law experts, who have long maintained the U.S. cannot legally take the mostly ice-covered island without the consent of Greenlanders and the Danes.
The Trump administration's unrelenting lust for Greenland—and refusal to rule out using military action against a fellow NATO member to take the sparsely populated, mineral-rich expanse by force—has deeply shaken NATO.
Read More on World
U.S. officials have said Washington needs control of Greenland to safeguard its national security and shore up NATO defenses. But onlookers also say sharp U.S. interest in the island, which is a semiautonomous part of Denmark, is also about expanding Washington's sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere and securing vital resources.
What Does the Bill Mean?
The office of Representative Randy Fine of Florida said on Monday that his bill would authorize President Donald Trump to "take whatever steps necessary to annex or acquire Greenland," essentially making Greenland the U.S.'s 51st state.
The proposed legislation also requires Congress to see a full report on how U.S. federal law must change to admit Greenland as an American state. But even though this bill could detail the process of admitting Greenland, this doesn't mean the process would be legal under international law, William Banks, a professor of law at Syracuse University, told Newsweek.
Newsweek has contacted the Danish government for comment.
Annexation is banned under international law. The U.S. cannot legally take over Greenland without the permission of those who live there and of Denmark. The U.S. Constitution, however, does not set out conditions for acquiring territories, and Congress could theoretically vote to approve annexation.
The bill "raises significant concerns from the perspective of international law," said Aurel Sari, a professor of public international law at the University of Exeter in England.
"Should the United States employ military force in an attempt to gain control and annex Greenland, this would not only be a serious violation of the prohibition to use force in international relations but also a breach of the prohibition to annex foreign territory," Sari told Newsweek. "The prohibition of forcible annexation is a fundamental rule of international law, and its violation a very serious matter."
...
Under the bill, the Trump administration would negotiate with Denmark to "annex or otherwise acquire" Greenland. Trump has indicated a willingness to "make a deal" for Greenland but has also said, "One way or the other, we're gonna have Greenland."
Danish officials have hit back with increasing force at such statements, saying the use of military force would spell the end of NATO and that the territory is not for sale. Many Greenlanders are in favor of Greenland eventually separating from Denmark, but opinion polls show the vast majority of Greenlanders do not want the island to become part of the U.S.
"Our country isn't something you can deny or take over because you want to," Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said earlier this month.
If passed, the bill would become known as the Greenland Annexation and Statehood Act. Both Democrats and Republicans have balked at the possibility of the U.S. launching a forcible takeover of Greenland, meaning the bill would have a tough time making it through Congress.
"From an international law perspective, this kind of bill, if enacted by Congress, would constitute a clear breach of Denmark's sovereignty and territorial integrity," said Marko Milanovic, a professor of public international law at the University of Reading in England.
"If the U.S. then proceed to forcibly take control over Greenland, it would be committing aggression against another state in violation of the U.N. Charter," Milanovic told Newsweek.
The United Nations Charter Article 2(4) lays out that changes to which country controls territory should not happen by using the military, or alluding to its possible use.
A separate bill, introduced by Democratic Representative Jimmy Gomez of California, seeks to block federal funds from being used to pursue U.S. control of Greenland and the U.S. military presence there, Axios reported on Monday.
Russia and China
"Greenland is not a distant outpost we can afford to ignore—it is a vital national security asset," Fine said in a news release. "Whoever controls Greenland controls key Arctic shipping lanes and the security architecture protecting the United States."
"America cannot leave that future in the hands of regimes that despise our values and seek to undermine our security," he continued.
Attention has increasingly turned to the Arctic, with major global players attempting to muscle in on the region as climate change carves out new trade routes and exposes previously inaccessible resources. China has declared itself a "near Arctic" state, and Russia—the dominant Arctic power—has been heavily investing in its footprint in the region.
But there is no evidence to suggest Russia or China would take control of Greenland, nor of Trump's previous claim that the territory is "covered with Russian and Chinese ships."
"My bill will protect our homeland, secure our economic future, and ensure that America—not China or Russia—sets the rules in the Arctic," Fine said.
It would be terrible for Russia and China to gain more of a foothold in Greenland, retired U.S. Air Force General Glen VanHerck previously told Newsweek. VanHerck served as the commander of the U.S. Northern Command and the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD. The joint American and Canadian command oversees both nations' Arctic operations. He added, "I don't think we're on the verge of that, but we certainly don't want that to happen."
A bipartisan group of lawmakers is expected to travel to Denmark later this week to meet Danish and Greenlandic officials.
Update 13/1/2026, 9:01 a.m. ET: This article was updated with additional information and a new headline.
Update 15/1/2026, 11 a.m. ET: This article was updated with additional comments from William Banks.
The news cycle is loud. Algorithms push us to extremes. In the middle—where facts, ideas and progress live—there's a void. At Newsweek, we fill it with fearless, fair and fiercely independent journalism.
Common ground isn't just possible—it's essential. Our readers reflect America's diversity, united by a desire for thoughtful, unbiased news. Independent ratings confirm our approach: NewsGuard gives us 100/100 for reliability, and AllSides places us firmly in the political center.
In a polarized era, the center is dismissed as bland. Ours is different: The Courageous Center—it's not "both sides," it's sharp, challenging and alive with ideas. We follow facts, not factions. If that sounds like the kind of journalism you want to see thrive, we need you.
When you become a Newsweek Member, you support a mission to keep the center strong and vibrant. Members enjoy:
Help keep the center courageous. Join today.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines