Why Greenland’s Autonomy Must Be Respected

This article was written by Ava Grainger-Williams, Policy Fellow 2024-2025, and originally appeared in DCJournal. The views in this article are the authors own.

As global competition in the Arctic heats up, Greenland’s future is more important than ever. However, it should be decided by its people, not foreign powers.

While American acquisition may seem strategically appealing, it fundamentally undermines Greenland’s right to self-determination. Under its 2009 Self-Government Act with Denmark, Greenland has the right to declare independence following a successful referendum — a goal recently reaffirmed by Prime Minister Múte Bourup Egede in his New Year’s address. 

Greenland’s right to self-rule isn’t just a legal principle — it’s the foundation of its political and economic future, ensuring that decisions about Greenland’s resources, governance and development are made by those who call it home, not by foreign powers seeking strategic or economic gain. 

The idea of purchasing Greenland is not new to U.S. political discourse, nor is President Trump the first leader to consider it. In 2019, Trump told reporters, “Strategically it’s interesting, and we’d be interested, but we’ll talk to them in a little bit.” 

Trump has now reignited the conversation, asserting, “For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.” 

The U.S. interest in Greenland stems from its strategic location and abundant resources. Between North America and Europe, Greenland is a critical node for military and intelligence operations. The island’s proximity to the North Pole makes it essential for missile defense systems, particularly as Russia and China ramp up their Arctic military capabilities. 

Furthermore, climate change is opening new shipping routes, placing Greenland at the center of emerging economic and geopolitical dynamics. Purchasing Greenland could also provide significant investment, infrastructure development and economic growth to a region largely dependent on subsidies from Denmark, which account for one-fifth of Greenland’s GDP. The island’s economy remains underdeveloped, with fishing as its primary export and limited infrastructure.

These economic conditions make true independence a challenging prospect. In theory, American investment could transform this landscape and pave the way for eventual independence by reducing its reliance on Danish support. For instance, the United States could help Greenland capitalize on its natural resources. These include rare earth minerals, uranium and iron, which may become more accessible as climate change leads to some of the ice covering Greenland melting. 

However, this would require Greenland to establish at least 20 major new mining projects — an ambitious and resource-intensive undertaking. The United States, with its financial and technological capabilities, could theoretically assist Greenland in this effort and unlock the island’s resource potential, reducing reliance on Danish subsidies while also providing significant economic benefits to the United States. 

Despite its potential strategic and economic benefits, buying Greenland is neither justifiable nor practical. Greenland is not merely a strategic asset or a repository of resources — it is home to 56,000 people, predominantly Inuit, with a distinct culture and a strong desire for self-governance. 

Greenland’s right to self-determination is not just a legal technicality; it is a core principle that protects its identity, ensures democratic legitimacy, and reflects the overwhelming will of its people. 

Recent polling underscores this sentiment: a survey conducted between January 22 and 27 revealed that 85 percent of Greenlanders oppose becoming part of the United States, with only 6 percent in favor and 9 percent undecided.

Sovereignty is not a tradable asset, and no nation should have its future dictated by foreign powers seeking strategic advantage rather than respecting the will of its people. Even from a purely pragmatic standpoint, acquiring Greenland would be more trouble than it’s worth. Integrating the island would be politically complex, requiring negotiations with Denmark, significant diplomatic capital, and legal challenges under international law. 

Although it seems a tremendous economic opportunity for the United States, a significant challenge to capitalizing on Greenland’s resources lies in reconciling industrial ambitions with the island’s deeply rooted cultural and ethical values. 

While some limited mining activity exists, many Greenlanders remain skeptical of external powers like Denmark safeguarding their interests or ensuring the proper clean-up and maintenance of mining sites. This skepticism would likely extend to the United States, raising concerns that Greenland’s priorities could be overlooked in favor of external profit motives. 

A complete acquisition is not only impractical but also unnecessary. If the United States genuinely seeks to advance its Arctic strategy, a cooperative partnership would be more effective than outright ownership. Strengthening existing security agreements, expanding military training exercises, intelligence sharing, and investing in infrastructure could all serve U.S. interests — without the backlash and complications of trying to buy an unwilling territory. 

A mutually beneficial agreement would allow the United States to expand its Arctic influence without undermining Greenland’s sovereignty or igniting a geopolitical controversy. 

If U.S. acquisition is such a bad idea, why is Greenland’s relationship with Denmark any better? The reality is that while Greenland’s situation is not ideal, if self-determination is the goal, then strengthening autonomy within the existing Danish framework — rather than trading it for American ownership — is the far better path forward. 

Greenland’s relationship with Denmark has evolved over centuries, culminating in the 2009 Self-Government Act, which grants Greenland the right to declare independence following a successful referendum. This framework acknowledges Greenland’s aspirations while providing the economic and security support Greenland relies on. 

Unlike outright U.S. ownership, this arrangement is based on mutual recognition and allows Greenland to incrementally expand its autonomy on its own terms.

Moreover, while Greenland remains economically dependent on Denmark, U.S. acquisition is not the solution — it would only replace one dependency with another without the same guarantees of political representation or self-rule.

 Greenlanders enjoy full voting rights in the Danish system and are overrepresented in Denmark’s parliament, allowing them to advocate for their interests at the national level. In contrast, if Greenland were absorbed by the United States, history suggests its people would be politically sidelined. 

A century ago, Denmark sold what is now the U.S. Virgin Islands to the United States, and to this day, Virgin Islanders — although U.S. citizens — lack voting rights in presidential elections and have limited congressional representation. There is no reason to believe Greenlanders would be treated any differently. 

Greenland is not just a strategic outpost or a prize for world powers — it is a nation with the right to determine its future. While the United States may view Greenland as a strategic and economic opportunity, attempting to acquire the island disregards the overwhelming will of Greenlanders, who have made it clear that they do not want to be bought. 

While its relationship with Denmark is imperfect, it provides a framework for eventual independence — something the U.S. acquisition would completely derail.