On Saturday, the U.S. administration made a startling announcement: Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has been detained, and the United States purportedly has taken control of the country. This declaration sent ripples through international discourse as speculation mounted regarding its implications.
Soon after this announcement, the wife of one of President Donald Trump’s closest advisers took to X, the social media platform, to share an image of Greenland emblazoned with the American flag, captioning it simply with the word “Soon.”
While the notion of a military takeover in Venezuela may intertwine with Trump’s ongoing interest in Greenland, Niels Bjerre-Poulsen, an associate professor at the Center for American Studies at the University of Southern Denmark, remains skeptical. He doubts that a military intervention in Greenland is plausible.
“What formal justification would there be for invading Greenland? Are there specific targets to capture? It’s not realistic to entertain that idea,” he stated.
### The U.S.’s Aspirations for Greenland
The interest in Greenland is not new. Back in December 2024, Trump expressed his belief that the United States should own Greenland, a sentiment echoed repeatedly by himself and his allies. On January 7, 2025, his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., visited Nuuk, drawing international attention toward the island.
On the same day, the incoming administration hinted at using economic or military leverage to assert claims over Greenland, despite both the U.S. and Denmark being NATO allies with a long-standing military presence in the region. When asked about potential annexation of Greenland on March 13, Trump stated, “I think it will happen.”
On March 15, demonstrations erupted in Greenland in opposition to U.S. ambitions, arguably the largest protest in the nation’s history. Following warnings of these demonstrations, the wife of Vice President JD Vance canceled a planned visit to Sisimiut, opting instead for a press conference at Pituffik Space Base on March 28.
By April, reports surfaced indicating that the U.S. was shifting its strategy to persuade Greenlanders through soft power and private investments. The situation escalated on May 6, when The Wall Street Journal revealed that Trump had instructed intelligence agencies to gather information on Greenlanders to support U.S. objectives, leading to widespread concerns of American espionage in the region.
In August, reports confirmed attempts by unnamed American individuals to “infiltrate” and influence Greenlandic affairs, with plans to identify potential allies in a secession from Denmark. On December 8, U.S. Ambassador Kenneth Howery assured Greenlandic leaders that the U.S. respects their right to determine their own future.
Amid these developments, on December 22, Trump appointed Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as a special envoy to Greenland, with a clear mission to advocate for its inclusion in the United States.
### The Question of Legality in Military Actions
Should the U.S. choose to engage militarily, Congress must grant its approval. Bjerre-Poulsen emphasized that the president can unilaterally deploy military force only if the nation is under attack. “What has occurred in Venezuela absolutely requires Congressional consent,” he remarked.
At a press conference on Saturday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the deployment in Venezuela as a police action, not an invasion. This assertion quickly faltered as Trump clarified that the U.S. now controls Venezuela and intends to implement regime change. Although some experts classify the action as an unconstitutional invasion, immediate repercussions seem unlikely—they are compounded by the fact that Trump’s party currently dominates both Congressional chambers.
“The sad reality is that Republican leadership in Congress has largely facilitated the president’s actions,” Bjerre-Poulsen noted.
### The Impossibility of Greenland’s Acquisition
Greenland is part of NATO, complicating any hypothetical U.S. takeover. Bjerre-Poulsen believes such an action would prompt grave consequences for the United States. “There would be no support for that, and the ramifications would be profound. It would either necessitate a withdrawal from NATO or a preemptive exit.”
He argues that Trump’s actions in Venezuela have not only faced inner-party division but have also diminished the likelihood of a Greenland invasion. “With Venezuela’s challenges, the administration is likely too preoccupied to consider expanding into Greenland,” he suggested.
### Anticipating Resistance in the U.S.
As mid-term elections approach in November, the prospect of a Democratic majority in Congress could further hinder any aggressive maneuvers regarding Greenland. Bjerre-Poulsen predicts that a shift in power may lead to hearings—and potentially even impeachment proceedings against Trump.
Trump has frequently framed the need for Greenland under the banner of national security. However, given existing defense agreements that afford significant U.S. military latitude in Greenland, Bjerre-Poulsen finds it hard to imagine any Congress would endorse a military invasion. “I can’t conceive of any scenario where Congress would approve such an action.”
He also speculates that Trump’s closest advisers have cautioned against taking drastic action, leading the president to lean towards supporting Greenlandic autonomy. The hope is that once Greenland gains independence, it might contemplate a partnership with the United States. However, he humorously illustrated the tension among advisors by noting, “One of them was nearly pulling his hair out when Trump declared, ‘I think we’ll get to it one way or the other.'”