Posted on 05/24/2026 7:01:45 AM PDT by DIRTYSECRET
President Donald Trump reignited debate over Greenland on Saturday after posting an image to Truth Social showing himself peering over snow-covered mountains toward the Arctic island territory with the caption: "Hello Greenland."
The post comes amid heightened tensions between Greenlanders and the Trump administration following the opening of a new U.S. consulate in Nuuk and a controversial visit by Trump ally and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry.
HUNDREDS of demonstrators gathered outside the new American diplomatic mission on Friday, chanting "Greenland is for Greenlanders" and protesting what many viewed as renewed U.S. pressure over the strategically located territory.
Protest organizer Aqqalukkuluk Fontain said Greenland’s government had already made its position clear to Washington.
"In a democratic world, no means no," he told the BBC.
Landry’s three-day trip drew criticism after he arrived without an official invitation while diplomatic tensions remain unresolved over Trump’s push for greater American control and influence in Greenland, which is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark.
During his visit, Landry met with Greenlandic officials and business leaders while also suggesting Greenland could prosper as an independent nation.
The newly expanded 3,000-square-meter U.S. consulate, nicknamed "Trump Towers" by some locals, has become a symbol of Washington’s growing Arctic ambitions.
The Trump administration has argued that Greenland is critical to U.S. national security interests in the Arctic region.
While Trump’s social media post was brief and lighthearted in tone, it underscored the administration’s continued focus on Greenland at a time when many residents remain wary of increasing American involvement.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
I wish Trump would stop this stupid crap that’s never going to happen. This would never make it through congress in a million years even if the people in Greenland wanted it.
This is a big opportunity for them provided they don’t blow it. Remember when lots of oil was discovered in Mexico? It was their ‘last chance’ to get it right. It seems they got it wrong. All I remember was the Mexican President insulting President Carter at a formal get together.
As for Greenland’s opportunity. Think of Sadat agreeing to meet with Begin at Camp David. The history making moment was bigger than the 2 of them and there’s no way they could not succeed. Carter was able to not screw it up-his one accomplishment.
Don’t dare make GR a state.
Territory only.
Still American, no longer European.
What’s not to like?
“The cold coast of Greenland is barren and bare
No seed time nor harvest is ever known there
And the birds here sing sweetly on mountain and dale
But there isn’t a birdie to sing tae the whale.
There is no habitation for a man to live there
And the king of that country is the fierce Greenland bear
And there will be no temptation to tarry long there
With our ship bumper full, we will homeward repair. George Scroggie
Greenland already gets millions yearly (more than half its annual budget) from Denmark
Their language, Greenlandic is the official language alongside Danish
They get universal medical healthcare
They get representation in the Danish parliament.
Any USA offer needs to match the above
They will refuse it unless:
1. Greenland gets USA statehood
2. Greenlandic is recognized as an official language within Greenland
3. The USA provides universal medical healthcare to all Greenlanders
4. The USA provides at least 50% of the Greenlandic budget
It would have to be 52 as Puerto Rico would need to be given statehood at the same time.
Puerto Rico now reliably votes GOP
They already get jobs from the Danish state
In 2009, Denmark passed the Act on Greenland Self-Government. The Act explicitly recognizes the people of Greenland as a distinct group with the right to self-determination under international law. Because self-determination is legally tied to the local population, Denmark does not own the “title” to the land in a way that allows them to cede or sell it to a third party. Copenhagen literally does not have the legal authority to sign Greenland away.
The 2009 Act states that the Greenlandic and Danish governments operate as equal partners on matters affecting the island’s territory. Any major change to Greenland’s status—including its borders or a transfer of administration—requires a binding referendum by the people living in Greenland.
If Denmark tried to sell the island behind Greenland’s back, it would violate its own constitution and international law
Greenland possesses internal sovereignty. They control their own judicial system, their own natural resources, and their own borders. Denmark only handles foreign affairs and defense—and even then, they must consult Greenland. The Greenlanders don’t need to declare independence to say no to a sale; their current legal status already gives them a total, absolute veto.
The Greenlanders already have
1. representation in the Danish parliament,
2. universal medical healthcare,
3. their language Greenlandic recognized as a co official language,
4. full control over internal policy
5. veto over external policy
Why would they settle for territory status when they have the right of am independent constituent country within the crown of Denmark?
It isn’t owned by the Danish crown. No more than Canada is owned by the British crown
Thanks, I was aware of some of that, but not all of it, but then, why are we acting as if Denmark has a voice in the matter? Is it only out of respect for the history?
you are confusing the country of Denmark with the Kingdom of Denmark (the Realm).
The 2009 act granted Greenland Self-Government (extreme domestic autonomy) within the Kingdom of Denmark.
Think of the Kingdom of Denmark as a mini-federation consisting of three equal parts: Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands. They share a currency, a monarch, and a supreme court.
Under Chapter 4 of the 2009 Self-Government Act, Greenland took over almost all internal responsibilities (like policing, courts, and natural resources). However, the Act explicitly leaves Foreign Affairs, Security, and Defense Policy under the constitutional authority of the Danish Government in Copenhagen. The Greenlanders have a veto over the foreign policy affecting them. Do this means that Denmark and Greenland need to be consulted together.
While Denmark officially handles foreign policy, the 2009 Act states that Denmark cannot make major foreign policy decisions affecting Greenland without Greenland’s consent.
This creates a mandatory partnership. Neither can act alone on the global stage regarding the island.
The 2009 Act does outline a legal path for Greenland to claim full independence (Section 21), which requires a local referendum and approval by the Danish parliament. However, until Greenland officially triggers that clause and severs ties completely, it remains part of the Danish Realm.
So net-net we aren’t consulting Denmark out of politeness; we are consulting them because of the law. Under the 2009 Self-Government Act, Greenland is an autonomous territory, not an independent state. While Greenland has a total veto over its own resources and land, Denmark still constitutionally runs Greenland’s foreign defense and security policy.
Given that the Parliament has the final say so, said 'independence' looks like a distinction without much of an operational difference from territorial status.
think of Greenland and Denmark as two adult business partners who co-own a company (the Kingdom of Denmark wet the country of Greenland), but have signed a contract dividing up their jobs.
Denmark’s Job: Head of Foreign Legal Affairs & Security.
Greenland’s Job: Head of Domestic Operations, Property, and Natural Resources.
Because of this contract (the 2009 Self-Government Act), if a third party (the USA) wants to make a deal, the U.S. cannot just buy out Denmark’s shares. Denmark doesn’t own Greenland’s assets. The U.S. is forced to sit at the table with both partners because one holds the deed to the land (Greenland) and the other holds the legal authority to sign international treaties (Denmark).
If the U.S. only talks to Denmark, Greenland can say: “You can sign whatever defense treaty you want, but we control the land, the ports, and the mining rights, and we aren’t letting you in.”
If the U.S. only talks to Greenland, Denmark can say: “This is an international security matter, and under our constitution, Greenland cannot sign a military treaty without our parliament’s stamp.”
And you must remember that Greenland gets many benefits from Denmark
Denmark gives Greenland a massive annual financial subsidy (roughly $600 million USD), which funds a huge portion of Greenland’s public budget.
This subsidy directly guarantees universal healthcare, free education, and social safety nets for Greenland’s 56,000 residents.
Greenlandic is the official language of the island, yet Greenlanders hold two permanent, voting seats in the Danish Parliament (Folketing) to ensure their voices are heard at the highest level of the Realm.
So the USA needs to offer:
1. Statehood
2. Recognition of the Greenlandic language as the official language
3. Oh and the locals get a veto on who can but or exploit the land
4. 600 million USD annually
5. Universal medical healthcare
6. Free higher education
And then it needs to get the Greenlanders to request for a referendum, get that recognized by the Danish parliament
think of Greenland and Denmark as two adult business partners who co-own a company (the Kingdom of Denmark wet the country of Greenland), but have signed a contract dividing up their jobs.
No More Kings!
there is a massive operational difference.
U.S. territories (like Puerto Rico or Guam) are subject to the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution, meaning Congress has ultimate power over them, and they have no legal path to leave.
By contrast, the Danish Parliament's "final say" on Greenland is a formal constitutional sign-off on a pre-agreed treaty, not a colonial veto. Under Section 21 of the 2009 Act, if Greenland votes for independence, Denmark is legally mandated to negotiate the separation terms. Denmark cannot legally tell Greenland "no"—the Parliament merely votes to ratify the exit agreement and amend the Danish Constitution to reflect the new borders
Well. “The kingdom of Denmark” is technically like a corporation. Similar to the position if “the criwn” in the UK which both is and isn’t Chucky
Referendum. What’s wrong with declaring independence?
For Greenland to declare independence they need to have a referendum.
Unless you think that Florida, for instance could just declare independence without an internal referendum?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.