The Perilous Logic of Trump’s Greenland Claim: A Pathway to Global Anarchy?

The Perilous Logic of Trump’s Greenland Claim: A Pathway to Global Anarchy?

On January 9, 2026, President Donald Trump sharply questioned Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland, declaring: *“the fact that they had a boat land there 500 years ago doesn’t mean that they own the land.”*¹

He argued that the United States must “own” Greenland for national security reasons, warning that Russia or China would otherwise occupy it, and suggested the U.S. would act “whether they like it or not”—potentially “the hard way.”²

Trump’s reasoning dismisses long-standing historical settlement or discovery as insufficient for legitimate ownership. While he wields this argument selectively to advance U.S. strategic interests, universalizing the principle would undermine the very foundations of modern territorial sovereignty—built on centuries of settlement, treaties, and effective control. The result could be widespread challenges to existing borders and unprecedented global conflict.

Applying the Principle Consistently

If arrival or settlement centuries ago no longer confers enduring rights, many current national boundaries become vulnerable.

The Americas and Indigenous Claims

European colonists arrived in North America roughly 400–500 years ago. By Trump’s logic, Native American and First Nations peoples could assert stronger claims, demanding the removal of descendants of later settlers—including Trump himself, whose ancestors immigrated long after initial colonization.

South Africa and Colonial Settlement

Dutch (Afrikaner) settlers arrived in the 17th century, roughly 400 years ago. Indigenous Black South Africans could argue that this historical arrival does not entitle Afrikaner descendants to ownership, potentially intensifying calls for broader land reclamation.

Israel and Palestine

Modern Jewish settlement intensified in the late 19th and 20th centuries, though tied to ancient historical connections. Palestinians could apply Trump’s principle to challenge Israeli sovereignty as based on relatively recent “arrival” overriding prior presence.

Australia and Aboriginal Rights

British colonization began in 1788—well within the 500-year window Trump references. Aboriginal Australians, present for over 60,000 years, could demand reversal of colonial land titles, rendering much of modern Australia’s territorial basis illegitimate.

New Zealand and Māori Sovereignty

British settlement was formalized with the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. Māori could argue that this recent “landing” does not override their prior sovereignty, escalating ongoing land and governance disputes.

Get Alexander Pym Atà Allison’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

Subscribe

Subscribe

Latin America and Indigenous Legacy

Spanish and Portuguese conquests began around 500 years ago. Indigenous groups in Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, and beyond could challenge the legitimacy of post-colonial states dominated by European descendants or mestizo elites.

Canada and First Nations

European (French and British) settlement dates back 400–500 years. Inuit, Métis, and First Nations could assert that historical arrival does not entitle Canada to vast northern territories—ironically including Arctic regions near Greenland.

These examples reveal a classic reductio ad absurdum: Trump’s selective rejection of “landing 500 years ago” as a basis for ownership threatens to invalidate countless borders established through exploration, colonization, conquest, or treaty over similar periods.

The Broader Danger: Undermining the International Order

Modern territorial sovereignty rests on principles such as effective control, international recognition, and the doctrine of uti possidetis—the inheritance of colonial borders. Historical discovery alone has not been sufficient since the end of the colonial era; the UN Charter and international law emphasize stability and self-determination.³

By publicly challenging these norms for strategic gain, Trump’s rhetoric risks inspiring revisionist claims worldwide. Authoritarian regimes could adopt the same logic: China might escalate South China Sea assertions by downplaying historical Western presence, while Russia could further justify territorial incursions by dismissing post-Soviet borders.

The outcome would be a cascade of disputes, ethnic expulsions, and resource conflicts. Far from the “President of peace” image Trump has sometimes projected, this approach invites anarchy and weakens the global stability the United States has historically championed.

Pursuing Greenland would be far wiser through existing defense agreements and diplomacy rather than invoking a principle that, if applied universally, would prove catastrophically self-defeating. Selective historical revisionism is not strategy—it is recklessness.

References

¹ CNBC — “Trump: ‘We are going to do something on Greenland whether they like it or not’” (Jan 9, 2026)

² Reuters — “Trump says US needs to own Greenland to deter Russia, China” (Jan 9, 2026)

³ Wikipedia — “Proposed United States acquisition of Greenland” (ongoing entry, updated Jan 2026)

Additional reporting:

PBS NewsHour — “WATCH: Trump says Russia or China will occupy Greenland ‘if we don’t’” (Jan 9, 2026)

Politico — “With Greenland push, Trump once again thinks he’s got the cards” (Jan 9, 2026)

The New York Times — “Trump Threatens to Take Greenland ‘the Hard Way’” (Jan 9, 2026)

DW — “Trump says US will take Greenland the ‘easy way or hard way’” (Jan 9, 2026)