Editorial: Talk of invading Greenland is irresponsible

Las Vegas Review-Journal, Las Vegas Review-Journal on Jan 20, 2026

Published in Op Eds

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

There is nothing inherently wrong with President Donald Trump’s pursuit of Greenland. But threatening to seize the island through military force is ridiculous, counterproductive and anathema to America’s values.

U.S. attempts to purchase Greenland — an autonomous territory of Denmark, a NATO ally — date to the 19th century. The United States has long considered the island of strategic importance, and it is rich in resources. With China and Russia saber-rattling about increasing their presence in the arctic, Greenland takes on more significance.

Yet Denmark officials insist the island is not for sale. This has led Trump to hint that he might take Greenland by force. On Monday, he responded to inquiries about the possibility with “No comment.”

Trump’s penchant for using bombast and bluster as a pressure tactic is well-known. But he often means exactly what he says. (See: Iran and Venezuela.) An invasion of Greenland, however, would be a miscalculation of epic proportion, essentially ending an alliance that has served the West well for seven decades, needlessly antagonizing longtime and loyal allies, demolishing international norms and repudiating the principles laid out in the Declaration concerning governments creating their legitimacy through “consent of the governed.”

It would also be unpopular domestically and wholly unnecessary. A recent Reuters poll found that only 4 percent of respondents felt it would be appropriate for the United States to take Greenland through military action. Many voters believe that Trump should pursue other priorities, particularly given that Denmark is already amendable to allowing the United States to expand its military presence on the island and to play a larger role in tapping Greenland’s mineral riches.

It may be too much to hope that those in Trump’s inner circle can talk the president down. But now would be an opportune time for Republicans to vocally express their displeasure with chatter from the White House about unprovoked American military aggression toward NATO, Denmark and Greenland. Some are doing precisely that.

“It’s great for Putin, Xi and other adversaries who want to see NATO divided,” said GOP Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Rep. Mike Turner, the Ohio Republican who heads the U.S. delegation to NATO’s Parliamentary Assembly, said on “Face the Nation” that, “There certainly is no authority that the president has to use military force to seize territory from a NATO country.”

Trump has enjoyed foreign policy success during his time in office, including the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program and a push toward peace in the Middle East. An invasion of Greenland would shatter that legacy, knee-cap America’s moral authority, embolden bad actors across the globe and undermine Republican electoral chances. Trump should back off.