Your fact-checks will appear here
The role of NATO in the dispute over Greenland and how it affects the relationship between the US, Denmark, and Greenland.
The drive to bring Greenland under U.S. control is framed by the Trump administration as primarily a national-security imperative — a strategic Arctic bulwark against Russia and China and a forward ba...
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...
Sustaining NATO forces in Greenland and Iceland would confront a blend of hard logistics — vast distances, sparse military infrastructure and constrained air/sea lines of communication — and hard poli...
NATO is not currently collapsing: no member state has formally rescinded membership as of 2026, and Article 13 provides a clear legal exit process . However, intense political shocks — most recently p...
Donald Trump has publicly and repeatedly suggested that military force is an available option to secure Greenland — ranging from refusing to rule out invasion to saying “military is always an option” ...
on the Defense of is a bilateral treaty between and that frames U.S. military rights and responsibilities in Greenland as an implementation of obligations, but it does not read as an unconditional, st...
The 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement is a bilateral treaty between Denmark and the United States that was enacted with Danish parliamentary approval and is expressly tied to NATO collective-defense...
NATO members have responded to President Trump’s push for Greenland with a mix of diplomatic engagement, public rebukes, and limited military signalling: emergency consultations in Brussels, bilateral...
Danish and Greenlandic leaders have issued firm, coordinated rebuttals to U.S. statements proposing U.S. control over Greenland, insisting that Greenland’s future and territorial sovereignty are matte...