Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it’s investigating the financials of Elon Musk’s pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, ‘The A Word’, which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.
The re-emergence of Donald Trump’s territorial ambitions related to Greenland has added another strange new wrinkle to the presidential transition process.
And while it’s highly unlikely that the president-elect will have any success in convincing the governments of either Greenland or Denmark to sever the ties between the European country and its autonomous North American territory, it’s worth looking into the process of how the U.S. acquires new territories — and how that territory could be classified.
Greenland has been tied to Denmark politically and culturally for more than a century. Perhaps not recognizing the strength of those ties, the United States has repeatedly expressed interest in acquiring the land and its people; the first push by U.S. politicians to purchase Greenland began in 1867, led by then-Secretary of State William Seward.
Little has changed since then. There is no serious interest in the population of Greenland to join the U.S., and there never has been. Close ties between the U.S. and the Danish government dating back to World War II have led to a limited but enduring American presence on the island, however, in the form of Pituffik, an air/space military installation now operated by the U.S. Space Force. The site is one of the U.S.’s most important early-warning missile defense systems.
It’s the strategic military and economic interests — compounded by two-thirds of the territory falling within the Arctic Circle — that makes the island so attractive to Trump and other U.S. politicians over the years. So what would Greenland’s acquisition actually look like?
Were Denmark and Greenland to suddenly reverse all opposition to the latter joining the U.S., the process would involve a treaty between Denmark and the U.S. That treaty would require ratification by two-thirds of Congress and a signature by the president before taking effect. But Greenland would not become a state automatically.
The U.S. controls several territories that have not made sustained (successful) pushes for statehood: American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Were Greenland to be purchased by the U.S. or admitted otherwise, it would become a U.S. territory until a separate statehood process took place.
Statehood was last granted to Hawaii in 1959, more than 60 years after the territory was first annexed by the United States following a coup backed by the U.S. military. The territory of Hawaii became the nation’s 50th state after successive statehood bills were put forward and died in Congress before finally reaching President Dwight Eisenhower’s desk. Eisenhower signed the bill, which was then ratified by a statehood vote on the island.
In the modern era, Puerto Rico is the most active among the remaining U.S. territories in pushing for statehood. A majority of voters backed statehood in a referendum on the November ballot, though there is no serious movement yet in Congress behind the issue. The District of Columbia, too, has pushed for statehood; Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser is a strong advocate for the nation’s capital to be admitted as a state, rather than having its affairs managed by Congress. While both developments would be unlikely under a GOP-controlled Congress and White House, the latter is a near-impossibility over the next four years given the strong liberal bent of the District’s voting population.
Were Greenland to be hypothetically admitted as a territory through purchase or diplomatic arrangement, it too would face a congressional battle over statehood. Unlike a treaty vote, it would require simple majorities in both chambers to pass (with the caveat that it would have to avoid a Senate filibuster, requiring 60 votes). The island’s voters would then have the final say.
As competition with China and Russia is expected to ramp up due to a warming Arctic, Greenland could remain in the spotlight for some time. More likely than not, however, the discussion in the immediate future will center around the damage the incoming president could do to U.S. relationships around the world with his dreams of territorial expansion and an “America First” foreign policy.
