Your fact-checks will appear here
Transcontinental sovereign state and constitutional monarchy
A 2022 agreement between Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark (including Greenland) settled the longstanding Hans Island dispute and created a land border while reaffirming existing maritime delimitations, ...
Greenlanders overwhelmingly reject becoming part of the United States and their government has publicly stated it “cannot under any circumstances accept” a U.S. takeover, instead affirming membership ...
— has never been a U.S. possession or part of the , though has repeatedly sought to control or influence the island through wartime defense arrangements, base rights and several purchase proposals tha...
The principal legal framework governing U.S. military presence in Greenland is the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement between the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark, negotiated at NATO’s reques...
Greenland is an autonomous constituent country within the Kingdom of Denmark: its people exercise broad internal self-government while Denmark retains responsibility for the realm’s sovereignty, defen...
Denmark cannot practically or legitimately unilaterally "sell" Greenland as if it were estate property; Greenland is an autonomous territory with rights to self-determination and strong, repeated publ...
The short answer: no — the 1951 U.S.–Denmark defense agreement gives Washington sweeping operational rights in Greenland but does not lawlessly permit the United States to “set up whatever military pr...
The governing, long-standing legal framework that gives broad military basing and access rights in is the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement between the United States and , which allows U.S. forces t...
The United States does not own Greenland; the island is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark and remains under Danish sovereignty . Recent rhetoric from the Trump White House seeking ...
No—under current treaties and political realities the EU would not simply “seize” American military bases in Europe if Donald Trump ordered a takeover of Greenland; Europe’s options are constrained to...
Greenland’s place inside the Kingdom of Denmark and under NATO protection rests on layered domestic law, bilateral defence treaties and alliance arrangements rather than on a single document: Danish c...
The 2004 Igaliku update formally amended the 1951 U.S.–Denmark Defense of Greenland agreement to bring Greenland’s Home Rule (later self‑government) institutions into the defence dialogue, add joint p...
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 report...
Russia has clear, long-standing strategic interests in the Arctic — energy, military basing, the Northern Sea Route and resources — and Moscow is watching the Greenland debate closely, but available r...
Greenland is not an independent sovereign state; it is an autonomous, self-governing country within the constitutional Kingdom (Realm) of Denmark, exercising control over most domestic affairs while D...
Greenland’s political leadership has firmly rejected any notion of U.S. acquisition or unilateral takeover while accepting the logic of stronger allied defence on the island—preferably multilateral an...
The United States would need Denmark’s and very likely Greenlanders’ explicit consent, plus adherence to international law and U.S. constitutional processes — primarily a treaty approved by two‑thirds...
A lawful transfer of Greenland to another state would require peaceful, negotiated cession that respects Danish sovereignty and Greenlandic self-determination — not a unilateral sale or seizure — and ...
has never owned ; it has at times acted as the island’s military protector, sought to purchase it, and secured extensive basing rights, but sovereignty has remained Danish and was reaffirmed by intern...
The prospect of a successful U.S. seizure or outright annexation of Greenland under President Trump is legally and politically implausible but not impossible as a short-term coercive gambit: the admin...