Can US invade Greenland?
Executive summary
The United States could physically attempt to seize Greenland, but doing so would be legally fraught, politically catastrophic, and militarily complex — and most analysts and officials cited in reporting see an armed invasion as unlikely; the White House has at times said military options exist while top diplomats have denied plans to invade [1] [2]. Any U.S. move to take Greenland would confront Danish sovereignty claims, Greenlandic opposition, NATO fallout, and likely internal U.S. legal and military resistance [3] [4] [5].
1. The legal ownership and who would be illegal to attack
Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, with foreign and security policy historically managed from Copenhagen, and Danish law and international principles recognize Danish sovereignty and Greenlandic self-government — a status that makes any unilateral seizure a violation of the UN Charter’s protections for sovereignty and territorial integrity unless Denmark consented [6] [2]. Danish and Greenlandic leaders have repeatedly rejected U.S. attempts to treat the island as for sale and have insisted on respect for sovereignty, framing forcible acquisition as unlawful and unacceptable [2] [3].
2. Military feasibility versus political reality
Analysts acknowledge the U.S. has overwhelming conventional military power and could theoretically seize strategic sites, but commentators and regional experts argue the operation would not be simple or without significant resistance and logistical hurdles — and most experts believe a full-scale armed takeover is unlikely [1] [7]. Reports indicate resistance within the U.S. military and senior officers warning about legality and political feasibility, with some accounts saying generals pushed back against invasion planning [8] [9].
3. NATO and alliance consequences — the costs of using force
An American attack on Greenland would risk rupturing NATO: Denmark has warned that military action would spell the end of the alliance, European officials have publicly condemned talk of seizure, and some analysts say other NATO members would have limited practical options to stop the U.S. militarily even as they considered punitive diplomatic or logistical measures [3] [10] [7]. Political costs — loss of trust, potential denial of U.S. use of European bases or facilities, and broad diplomatic isolation — are repeatedly cited as major deterrents to any U.S. military move [7] [11].
4. Alternatives to invasion the administration is pursuing or touting
The administration has publicly discussed nonviolent routes: buying Greenland from Denmark, negotiating a Compact of Free Association, or increasing troop presence incrementally rather than an outright assault; officials including Secretary of State Marco Rubio have said the U.S. did not plan to invade and framed land acquisition talk as bargaining or deterrence [2] [12] [1]. Political signaling — event markets pricing a small chance of invasion and heated rhetoric — has amplified fears and prompted diplomatic meetings between Washington, Copenhagen, and Nuuk [13] [2].
5. Greenlandic and international opposition: popular and political rejection
Polling and political statements show sharp Greenlandic and Danish opposition: a 2025 poll found strong Greenlandic rejection of U.S. control and substantial Danish concern that an invasion could occur under the current U.S. administration, fueling public protests and unified official denouncements [4] [3]. European voices, including ministers and NATO lawmakers, have warned of consequences and in some cases threatened symbolic and practical retaliation if the U.S. pursued force [10] [7].
6. Bottom line — capability is different from credibility
While the United States undoubtedly has the military capability to attempt seizing Greenland, the combination of international law, Danish sovereignty, Greenlandic public opposition, NATO rupture, U.S. military and congressional resistance, and the enormous diplomatic and strategic costs makes such an invasion highly implausible in practice; most reporting concludes it is technically possible but politically and legally prohibitive, and senior U.S. officials have also downplayed annexation by force [1] [8] [2].