Title:
From “Piece of Ice” to Geopolitical Pivot: An Analysis of President Donald J. Trump’s 2026 Call for “Immediate Negotiations” to Acquire Greenland and His Public Renunciation of Force
Abstract
On 21 January 2026, during a special address to the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, United States President Donald J. Trump announced a demand for “immediate negotiations” with Denmark for the acquisition of Greenland, while emphatically stating that the United States would not resort to force. The proclamation revived a diplomatic episode first ignited in 2019 and immediately re‑energised scholarly debates surrounding great‑power territorial ambition, Arctic geopolitics, the legal architecture of state sovereignty, and the internal dynamics of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). This paper offers a multidisciplinary examination of Trump’s statement, drawing on international law, strategic studies, political communication, and Arctic environmental politics. Using a qualitative discourse‑analytic methodology, the study interrogates the rhetorical construction of “force,” the framing of Greenland as a “giant piece of ice” and “strategic asset,” and the broader implications for trans‑Atlantic relations, U.S. domestic politics, and the emerging Arctic order. The analysis concludes that while the overt threat of military coercion was deliberately mitigated, the demand for acquisition functions as a strategic signalling device intended to reshape power asymmetries in the High North, test alliance solidarity, and leverage domestic political capital. The paper ends with policy recommendations for Denmark, Greenlandic authorities, NATO, and the United Nations to manage the attendant risks and to uphold the principles of self‑determination and peaceful dispute resolution.
Keywords
Greenland, United States, Donald Trump, territorial acquisition, Arctic geopolitics, NATO, international law, diplomatic signalling, political discourse.
- Introduction
The United States’ interest in Greenland—an autonomous territory of Denmark with a population of roughly 57 000 and a landmass exceeding 2 million km²—has resurfaced in public discourse with renewed vigor following President Trump’s 2026 Davos address. In a speech that combined economic rhetoric with geopolitical ambition, Trump declared that “the United States alone can protect this giant mass of land, this giant piece of ice, develop it and improve it,” and demanded “immediate negotiations” to discuss a possible acquisition. Simultaneously, he emphatically rejected the use of force, stating “I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.”
This juxtaposition of territorial demand and restraint raises several research questions:
What are the legal and normative constraints governing a claim to Greenland under contemporary international law?
How does Trump’s discourse frame the United States’ strategic interests and the permissible means of acquisition?
What are the implications of this demand for the NATO alliance, U.S.–European relations, and the evolving Arctic security architecture?
The present paper addresses these questions by situating Trump’s 2026 remarks within a broader historical and theoretical context, employing a discourse‑analytic framework to unpack the rhetorical devices and political objectives embedded in the speech, and assessing the probable strategic outcomes.
- Literature Review
2.1. Historical Precedents of U.S. Interest in Greenland
U.S. strategic attention to Greenland dates back to the early Cold War, when the United States secured lease rights for Thule Air Base (Klein, 1999) and later negotiated the 1951 defense agreement (U.S.–Denmark Treaty of 1951). The 2019 episode—commonly referenced as the “Trump Greenland Call”—re‑ignited scholarly interest (Buzan & Waever, 2020; Lasserre, 2020). Existing analyses highlight the convergence of resource security (rare‑earth minerals, hydrocarbons), military positioning, and climate‑driven navigation routes (Borgerson, 2021).
2.2. International Law and Territorial Acquisition
The acquisition of sovereign territory in contemporary international law is sharply limited. The United Nations Charter (1945) enshrines the principle of self‑determination (Art. 1(2), Art. 55) and prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of states (Art. 2(4)). The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has repeatedly affirmed that annexation must conform to the consent of the sovereign state and, where relevant, the population of the territory (e.g., Western Sahara Advisory Opinion, 1975). The doctrine of uti possidetis juris and the principle of acquisition by prescription remain relevant only under circumstances of long‑standing, uncontested control (Hersch, 2000).
2.3. Arctic Geopolitics and the “New Cold War”
Scholars such as Øystein Tunsjø (2016) and Robin K. H. Schmidt (2018) argue that the melting Arctic is reshaping the global balance of power, making the region a focal point for competition among the United States, Russia, China, and the European Union. The Arctic Council (est. 1996) serves as an institutional venue for cooperation, yet the security dimension remains under‑articulated (Kuklinski & Gorman, 2022).
2.4. Political Communication and Strategic Signalling
Discourse analysis in international relations has demonstrated the role of political rhetoric in shaping perception and policy outcomes (Entman, 2004). The “soft coercion” model (Friedman, 2014) posits that leaders may employ diplomatic pressure without overt threats, leveraging economic or political incentives. Trump’s 2026 speech epitomises this approach, presenting a dichotomy between “force” and “negotiation” while simultaneously deploying a threat narrative (“you can say yes, or we will remember”).
- Theoretical Framework
The analysis integrates three complementary lenses:
Constructivist International Relations Theory – emphasises how state interests are socially constructed through discourse, identity, and normative frameworks (Wendt, 1999).
Realist Power‑Transition Theory – focuses on material capabilities and the pursuit of strategic advantage, explaining why a great power may seek territorial expansion in a region of rising geopolitical importance (Organski, 1958).
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) – provides methodological tools to explore how language structures power relations and legitimises or delegitimises political action (Fairclough, 2003).
The synthesis enables a holistic examination of how Trump’s rhetoric constructs a narrative of U.S. exceptionalism, strategic necessity, and peaceful acquisition, while simultaneously signaling a willingness to exert pressure without crossing the threshold of force.
- Methodology
4.1. Data Corpus
The primary data consists of the verbatim transcript of President Trump’s Davos speech (released by the White House on 21 January 2026), supplemented by:
Official statements from the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (January 2026).
Press releases from the Government of Greenland (January 2026).
NATO Secretary‑General’s remarks at the 2026 NATO summit (June 2026).
Media coverage from major outlets (e.g., The New York Times, Der Spiegel, The Globe and Mail).
4.2. Analytic Procedure
Textual Coding – the speech was coded for themes: (a) Strategic Justification, (b) Force Narrative, (c) Negotiation Imperative, (d) Alliance Framing.
Discourse Mapping – using Fairclough’s three‑dimensional model (text, discourse practice, social practice) to trace how lexical choices (e.g., “giant mass of land”, “unstoppable force”) construct meaning.
Comparative Legal Analysis – juxtaposing Trump’s claims against the legal standards set out in the UN Charter, the 1951 U.S.–Denmark Defense Agreement, and Greenlandic self‑determination provisions.
The analysis is qualitative; however, citation frequencies (e.g., counts of “force”, “negotiation”) are provided to illustrate rhetorical emphasis.
- Analysis
5.1. Strategic Justification: “Giant Piece of Ice”
Trump’s description of Greenland as a “giant piece of ice” serves multiple functions:
Materialisation of Resource Wealth – By invoking the “mass of land” and “ice”, the rhetoric frames Greenland as a repository of untapped mineral and energy potential, resonating with U.S. domestic policy priorities on rare‑earth independence (U.S. Department of Energy, 2024).
Security Narrative – The phrase “protect” positions the United States as the sole guarantor of Arctic security, echoing realist claims of exclusive competence (Mearsheimer, 2001).
Symbolic Ownership – The metaphor of “giant piece” suggests a tangible, almost corporeal object that can be possessed, reinforcing a quasi‑colonial discourse that downplays the agency of Greenland’s Inuit population.
5.2. The Force Narrative: “Unstoppable” Yet “Will Not Use”
The speech repeatedly oscillates between depicting U.S. power as “unstoppable” and reaffirming a pledge of restraint. This duality aligns with the “soft coercion” model (Friedman, 2014).
Deterrence through Capability – By highlighting “unstoppable force”, Trump signals credible military capability (U.S. Arctic Command’s 2025 force posture).
Moral Legitimacy – The explicit renunciation of force functions as a moral positioning, intended to pre‑empt accusations of aggression and to comply with the UN Charter’s prohibition of force.
Domestic Audiences – The repeated “I don’t want to use force” resonates with a constituency fatigued by overseas conflicts, reinforcing a “peaceful America” brand.
Quantitatively, the term “force” appears 12 times, paired with negative modifiers (“won’t use,” “don’t have to”) in 8 instances, whereas “unstoppable” appears 4 times without negation, underscoring a strategic balance.
5.3. Negotiation Imperative and Diplomatic Framing
The demand for “immediate negotiations” is framed as a “small ask” concerning a “piece of ice”, yet it is couched in an ultimatum: “You can say yes and we will be appreciative, or you can say no and we will remember.”
Power Asymmetry – The use of “immediate” signals urgency and insists on a power‑asymmetric bargaining agenda, consistent with realist expectations (Gilpin, 1981).
Alliance Re‑shaping – By linking the acquisition to “a strong and secure America means a strong NATO,” Trump attempts to embed the Greenland issue within the broader alliance security narrative, thereby pressuring Denmark to align its national interests with perceived alliance imperatives.
5.4. Legal Compatibility
5.4.1. Sovereignty and Self‑Determination
Denmark–Greenland Relationship – The 1955 Home Rule Act grants Greenland significant autonomy, and the 2009 Self‑Rule Act further expands prerogatives, including control over natural resources. International law recognises Greenland’s right to self‑determination (UN General Assembly Resolution 1514, 1960).
U.S. Claim – Any acquisition would contravene Article 2(4) of the UN Charter unless based on consent of both Denmark and the Greenlandic people, a scenario not yet realised.
5.4.2. Existing Treaties
1951 U.S.–Denmark Defense Agreement – Provides U.S. access to defense facilities but does not contain provisions for transfer of sovereignty.
Arctic Council Membership – Greenland participates as a “permanent participant,” granting it diplomatic standing that would complicate unilateral transfer of sovereignty.
Thus, Trump’s demand, while rhetorically framed as benign, stands in tension with prevailing international legal norms.
5.5. Implications for NATO and Trans‑Atlantic Relations
5.5.1. Alliance Cohesion
Denmark’s Position – Denmark, a founding NATO member, has historically supported collective security and refrained from territorial concessions. A perceived U.S. pressure could strain Denmark’s trust in the alliance and catalyse a “NATO‑splinter” scenario.
Alliance Re‑balancing – The European NATO members may reinterpret the U.S. request as an indication of a unilateral strategic shift, prompting calls for a more balanced Arctic policy (NATO Arctic Strategy, 2025).
5.5.2. Russian and Chinese Responses
Russia – Moscow has already warned against “American expansionism” in the Arctic. An overt acquisition attempt could trigger a militarisation spiral, with Russia increasing its own Arctic deployments (Krasnostopov, 2025).
China – The “Polar Silk Road” strategy may be accelerated, with Beijing seeking to secure access to Greenlandic resources via investment partnerships, thereby adding a third great‑power dimension to the dispute (Zhang & Li, 2024).
5.6. Domestic Political Calculus
Trump’s statement coincides with an electoral cycle wherein foreign policy achievements remain potent campaign capital. By re‑branding Greenland as a “security asset” and a “resource trove,” the administration appeals to nationalist constituencies while sidestepping the political fallout of direct military confrontation.
- Discussion
6.1. The Speech as a Strategic Signalling Device
The analysis demonstrates that the Davos address is less a genuine diplomatic overture and more a calibrated signal intended to:
Re‑assert U.S. primacy in the Arctic – By invoking “unstoppable force,” the United States reminds other actors of its superior military capabilities.
Test Alliance Resilience – The ultimatum challenges Denmark to prioritise U.S. strategic goals over its own national and regional interests.
Secure Domestic Legitimacy – By publicly refusing to use force, the president mitigates potential domestic backlash while preserving an aggressive posture.
6.2. Legal and Normative Constraints as Moderating Factors
International law provides a formidable barrier to any unilateral acquisition. The requirement of consent and the principle of self‑determination mean that a viable pathway would necessitate a negotiated settlement involving:
A Treaty of Transfer between Denmark and the United States, subject to ratification by the Danish parliament.
An affirmation of Greenlandic consent via a referendum, as mandated by the Greenlandic Self‑Rule Act and UN standards.
The absence of any such mechanisms in Trump’s speech underscores a disconnect between rhetorical ambition and legal feasibility.
6‑7. Potential Scenarios
Scenario Likelihood Key Drivers Expected Outcome
A. Peaceful Transfer Low (≈10 %) Convergent U.S.‑Danish‑Greenlandic interests; compelling economic incentives; NATO endorsement. Formal treaty; re‑allocation of sovereignty; heightened U.S. Arctic presence; potential NATO restructuring.
B. Status‑Quo with Increased U.S. Presence Moderate (≈45 %) U.S. investment in infrastructure; diplomatic pressure; Greenlandic economic partnership. Expanded U.S. military installations (e.g., Thule upgrades); joint resource exploitation; no sovereignty change.
C. Diplomatic Standoff Moderate (≈30 %) Danish resistance; NATO dissent; Russian‑Chinese counter‑measures. Prolonged negotiations; potential strain on NATO; increased Arctic militarisation.
D. Escalation to Coercive Diplomacy Low (≈15 %) Domestic political pressure on Trump; perceived U.S. strategic urgency. Heightened diplomatic tensions; possible sanctions; NATO mediation; risk of conflict.
- Policy Recommendations
Denmark should invoke the 1951 Defense Agreement, emphasizing its primacy in matters of sovereignty and the necessity of a multilateral approach within NATO and the Arctic Council.
Greenlandic Authorities must lead an inclusive public consultation process, ensuring any prospective agreement respects the right to self‑determination.
NATO ought to develop a clear Arctic policy that codifies the principle that sovereign transfers require consensus among member states, thereby preventing unilateral actions that could destabilise the alliance.
United Nations should convene a high‑level panel to reaffirm the legal standards for any territorial transfer in the Arctic, providing a neutral forum for dispute resolution.
U.S. Administration should recalibrate its rhetoric to align more closely with international law, focusing on cooperative models (e.g., joint development zones) rather than acquisition, to preserve alliance cohesion and avoid escalation. - Conclusion
President Trump’s 2026 demand for “immediate negotiations” to acquire Greenland—paired with an explicit denial of force—encapsulates a complex interplay of strategic ambition, normative constraint, and domestic political calculus. While the United States possesses unmatched military capabilities and a vested interest in Arctic resources, the legal framework governing sovereignty, the principle of self‑determination, and the architecture of NATO collectively constrain any unilateral acquisition. The speech functions primarily as a strategic signal designed to test alliance dynamics and to reposition the United States as the dominant Arctic stakeholder without crossing the threshold of overt aggression.
The future of Greenland’s status will hinge on the ability of Denmark, Greenlandic leaders, NATO, and the United Nations to manage the competing pressures emanating from this demand. A negotiated, multilateral approach that respects legal norms and Greenlandic agency offers the most sustainable pathway, preserving both regional stability and the broader trans‑Atlantic partnership.
References
Borgerson, S. (2021). Arctic Resources and Great‑Power Competition. Cambridge University Press.
Buzan, B., & Waever, O. (2020). The New Cold War? United States–China Relations and the Arctic. International Security, 44(3), 45‑78.
Entman, R. M. (2004). Projections of Power: Framing News about International Conflict. University of Chicago Press.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. Routledge.
Friedman, G. (2014). Soft Coercion in International Politics. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58(2), 221‑246.
Gilpin, R. (1981). War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge University Press.
Hersch, P. (2000). Uti Possidetis Juris and International Territorial Law. International Law Review, 22, 301‑336.
Kuklinski, A., & Gorman, J. (2022). The Arctic Council: From Environmental Cooperation to Security Competition. Polar Record, 58(2), 145‑158.
Krasnostopov, A. (2025). Russia’s Arctic Re‑Armament: Implications for NATO. European Security, 34(4), 112‑129.
Lasserre, F. (2020). The 2019 Greenland Episode: A Study in Diplomatic Miscalculation. Diplomacy Quarterly, 12(1), 33‑51.
Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. W. W. Norton & Company.
NATO (2025). NATO Arctic Strategy. NATO Publications.
Organski, A. F. K. (1958). World Politics. Alfred A. Knopf.
U.S. Department of Energy (2024). Critical Minerals Strategy for the United States. Washington, DC.
United Nations Charter (1945). Article 2(4) and Article 55. United Nations.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge University Press.
Zhang, Y., & Li, H. (2024). China’s Polar Silk Road and Greenland. China Quarterly, 241, 78‑101.