By Alexander Muse on X on December 24, 2025
Greenland is routinely described by European officials and media outlets as a European territory drifting temporarily outside the European Union. This framing is false. It is false geographically, false legally, false historically, and false politically. Greenland is not part of Europe. It is part of North America. Its people have repeatedly rejected European political control. Its security has been guaranteed by the United States for 85 uninterrupted years. And its future, including the question of independence or association with the United States, belongs exclusively to the people of Greenland.
Begin with geography, because geography fixes limits that politics cannot revise. Greenland sits on the North American tectonic plate. Its continental shelf is North American. It is closer to Canada than to Denmark. Its Inuit population shares linguistic, cultural, and historical ties with Indigenous peoples of Alaska and northern Canada, not with continental Europe. Europe is a legal and political construct. Continents are not. Greenland is in the Americas, full stop.
European confusion begins with Denmark’s membership in European institutions. Denmark joined the European Economic Community in 1973. Greenland did not consent. Greenlanders were given no vote. No meaningful voice. Their economy, dominated by fishing, was suddenly subjected to distant regulatory regimes designed for continental states with industrial agriculture and mass markets. The result was predictable. Greenland demanded self government. In 1979, it won home rule, gaining control over its internal affairs. That autonomy was then tested.
In 1982, Greenland held a referendum on continued membership in the EEC. The result was narrow but decisive. By a vote of 52% to 48%, Greenland chose to leave. In 1985, Greenland formally exited the European Community, becoming the first territory ever to do so. It has remained outside the EU ever since. This was not a symbolic protest. It was a deliberate rejection of European fisheries policy, regulatory overreach, and governance by institutions that neither understood nor respected Greenlandic realities.
Yet European officials continue to behave as if Greenland is merely a wayward appendage of Europe. They are mistaken. Greenland is classified as an Overseas Country and Territory, not a member state, and even that status is conditional. In 2009, Denmark formally recognized Greenland’s absolute right to independence. Denmark agreed in advance that if Greenland voted to leave the Danish realm, Denmark would accept the decision. No veto. No override. No appeal to Brussels. Sovereignty, in this case, rests where it belongs, with the people who live on the island.
This legal fact matters because it dissolves the pretense that Europe has any standing in Greenland’s future. The EU provides approximately $30M per year in development funding and pays another $15M annually for access to Greenlandic fishing waters under Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements. This is not sovereignty. It is a transaction. Aid does not confer ownership. Leasing fishing access does not confer political authority. Greenland is not a European dependency. It is a self governing people with an explicit legal path to independence.
The United States understands this reality. Europe does not. That difference explains President Trump’s decision to appoint Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as US special envoy to Greenland. Landry’s role is not to dictate outcomes. It is to engage directly with Greenlanders as they deliberate their future. Remain tied to Denmark. Seek EU membership. Declare full independence. Or pursue association with the United States, potentially as a US territory. These are Greenland’s choices. The EU gets no vote.
European media have reacted hysterically, alleging American imperialism and even invasion. The charge is absurd. The United States has maintained a continuous military presence in Greenland since 1941. It guarantees Greenland’s security under a 1951 defense treaty and through NATO. If American presence constitutes occupation, then the occupation has lasted 85 years, been openly acknowledged by treaty, and has been requested and renewed by Denmark itself. In reality, American forces are there because without them Greenland would be indefensible.
History makes this plain. When Denmark fell to Nazi Germany in 1940, it was cut off from Greenland. Danish authorities collaborated with German occupiers in Europe. Greenland did not. Greenland refused to recognize Nazi authority and entered into an agreement with the United States for protection, before Pearl Harbor, making Greenland one of America’s first overseas defense commitments of World War II. The United States did not conquer Greenland. It saved it.
Since then, America has never left. In 2025 dollars, the US has invested between $30B and $40B in Greenland. That includes air bases, weather stations, patrols, garrisons, air ferry routes, and major infrastructure projects. Facilities such as Bluie West One at Narsarsuaq, the construction of the DEW Line, Operation Blue Jay, Camp Century, Pituffik, and Sondrestrom were not symbolic gestures. They were capital intensive, long term investments that integrated Greenland into the North American defense perimeter.
The cryolite mine at Ivittuut alone supplied material essential for aluminum production during World War II, making Allied aircraft manufacturing possible. Its expansion and sustained operation were financed and supported by American taxpayers, who funded infrastructure, security, and logistics to keep the mine running at full capacity. This was not charity. It was partnership. Greenland mattered because it was strategically indispensable. That remains true today as Arctic routes open and great power competition intensifies.
Contrast this with Denmark’s contribution. Denmark provides roughly $600M annually in direct aid to Greenland. That figure is often cited as proof of benevolence. It is also proof of constraint. Subsidy dependency limits sovereignty. If Greenland were to separate completely from Denmark, it would save that $600M immediately and gain the freedom to structure its economy around its own development rather than transfer payments to a faraway island.
Greenlandic frustration with Denmark is not theoretical. Denmark blocked Greenland’s effort to expand airports at Nuuk, Ilulissat, and Qaqortoq, delaying tourism and economic growth. Denmark has clashed with Greenland over uranium and rare earth development, most explosively at Kvanefjeld, where Danish and international pressures derailed Greenlandic resource plans. These are not minor disagreements. They are disputes over whether Greenland is allowed to develop its own future.
Then there is the spiral case. For decades, Danish authorities forced Greenlandic women to use IUDs without informed consent to limit population growth. This policy was not ancient history. Survivors are alive today. Denmark only recently agreed to apologize and offer compensation. This episode alone permanently shattered any claim that Danish governance was benign or respectful.
Denmark’s defense posture further exposes the fiction. Denmark failed to meet NATO’s 2% spending target for most of the past decade, hovering around 1.3% to 1.5%. It provides only 100 to 150 soldiers to defend the world’s largest island. The United States maintains far more personnel and all meaningful defensive systems. If Greenland is protected, it is protected by America.
President Trump’s Greenland initiative recognizes these realities. It is not a threat. It is an offer. An offer grounded in geography, history, and mutual interest. Association with the US would mean infrastructure investment, private capital, job creation, and integration into the largest economy in the world. It would mean security guaranteed not by promises but by presence. It would mean cultural autonomy preserved within a federal system that already accommodates indigenous self governance.
Europe’s alternative is technocratic management from Brussels, demographic transformation across the continent, and regulatory regimes hostile to resource development. Greenland has already rejected that path once. There is no reason to believe it would embrace it now.
Greenland is not for sale. But it is not Europe’s to claim. It belongs to the Americas by geology, to itself by law, and to the United States by history and security partnership. President Trump’s approach respects that truth. He is not proposing conquest. He is proposing prosperity.
