The difficulties of finding a democratic solution to the Greenland crisis

In his opinion piece in EUobserver of 15 January, Jaap Hoeksma suggested a democratic means of resolving the crisis over Greenland. 

In the realm of foreign relations, Hoeksma noted that “Brussels remains silent,” but Ursula von der Leyen since has expressed the European Commission’s diplomatic support for Greenland while deferring to Nato for its defence. 

Meanwhile, negotiations between Denmark and Greenland, on the one hand, and the United States, on the other hand, just began. 

The two sides established a working group regarding Greenland, but the Danes and Greenlanders see it as an effort to iron out differences, while the Americans view it as a means of facilitating the transfer of sovereignty. 

Hoeksma proposed another level of talks that involve the European Parliament conferring directly with the US Congress. 

Specifically, he suggested that Roberta Metsola, president of the European Parliament, meet with the Republican Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House of Representatives, and his counterpart in the Senate, the Republican majority leader John Thune (there is no equivalent of the speaker of the House in the Senate, where the vice president of the United States presides over the body). 

While Hoeksma’s proposal is worth pursuing, inter-parliamentary consultation to resolve this crisis has a number of complexities.

Hoeksma noted that the American Constitution gives Congress the right to declare war, but he neglected to add that the War Powers Resolution enables the president to commit American troops without congressional approval for 60 days, with a possible 30-day extension, before the troops must withdraw or Congress must pass a declaration of war. 

Since its passage in 1973, the War Powers Resolution has not been effective because Congress is hesitant to enforce it. 

The ongoing Venezuela crisis affords the most recent example. 

Trump likely has no qualms about invading Greenland and sacrificing the historic and effective Atlantic alliance in return for the benefits America can accrue by acquiring Greenland.

Senate deadlocked

The Senate almost used the War Powers Resolution to prevent president Donald Trump from sending troops into Venezuela, but the Senate was deadlocked, and, on 14 January, vice-president JD Vance broke the tie to defeat the measure. 

Afterwards, the Democratic minority leader Chuck Schumer remarked that “Senate Republicans continually fall in line behind Donald Trump no matter how reckless, no matter how unconstitutional, no matter the potential cost of American lives.”

Trump controls the Republican Party, which, in turn, dominates both houses of Congress, albeit with narrow majorities. 

The president prides himself as a man of action and will not hesitate to order American troops to invade Greenland if he feels that step is warranted. He will deal with the fallout from Congress, if any surfaces, after troops presumably take the island. 

Furthermore, Trump has made it clear that he prefers bilateral arrangements with European states over dealings with the European Union, and his views complicate any interchange between Brussels and Washington. 

Trump also has little regard for the post-1945 order, including Nato, from which he believes the United States should withdraw. At the moment, however, Trump maintains that Nato should facilitate the efforts of the US to take Greenland, and he claims that anything less than full American control of Greenland is “unacceptable.” 

Trump likely has no qualms about invading Greenland and sacrificing the historic and effective Atlantic alliance in return for the benefits America can accrue by acquiring Greenland. After all, America stands to gain a territory that is strategically important and economically valuable from the standpoint of rare-earth minerals. 

An American invasion of Greenland also essentially would end America’s involvement in Nato, something Trump cannot do as president because of a 2023 law giving that power to the Senate (the vote requires a two-thirds majority) or an act of Congress. 

One can only speculate whether Trump’s desire to end America’s involvement in Nato is a surreptitious reason behind his determination to take Greenland. 

Furthermore, success in Greenland would boost Trump’s political capital in certain quarters since he would tout the acquisition of the island as another victory in his effort to make America great again. 

For now, Trump is restricting his actions to levying tariffs, beginning 1 February, in an attempt to force the hand of Denmark and the other countries that recently augmented the European military presence in Greenland.

US public opinion firmly against

At this point, Americans overwhelmingly oppose any effort to take Greenland. A Yahoo/YouGov poll conducted between 8-12 January reveals that 62 percent of Americans, including large numbers of Republicans and independent-minded conservatives, oppose military intervention in Greenland (14 percent favours such action and 23 percent of Americans are unsure). 

A poll by Quinnipiac University released on 14 January indicates that 86 percent of Americans disapprove of taking Greenland by force, and 55 percent are not in favor of buying it from Denmark.  A CNN poll published on 15 January 2026 found that 75 percent of Americans are against the United States taking control of Greenland.

Despite its complexities, Hoeksma’s proposal warrants Metsola’s consideration. 

Republican congressmen may be willing to ingratiate with Trump, but they also are conscious of their constituents’ wishes, especially if they are facing reelection. 

In approaching negotiations with Congress, Metsola should keep in mind the opinions of American voters.  On 17 January, a bipartisan congressional delegation travelled to Greenland to reassure the inhabitants that they oppose Trump’s designs on their country. 

With the American delegation having laid the groundwork, now would be an excellent time for Metsola to make an overture to the leaders of Congress.

Become a subscriber and support EUobserver's journalism in 2026.