Key takeaways:

• Jimmy Kimmel mocked Trump’s Greenland takeover plan in his opening monologue.
• The United States already has rights to build bases in Greenland under a 1951 deal.
• Some leading Republicans, including Mike Johnson, call an invasion inappropriate.
• NATO rules could force members to defend Denmark if Greenland were attacked.
• Experts warn that a Greenland takeover idea is reckless, pointless, and illegal

Trump’s Greenland takeover: A flawed plan

President Trump has suggested a Greenland takeover by force if Denmark won’t sell. Yet the plan faces many legal and political obstacles. In fact, the U.S. can build military bases in Greenland today under an old agreement. Meanwhile, top Republicans warn that invading a friendly nation could hurt U.S. alliances. On top of that, experts question the national security argument behind the idea.

Jimmy Kimmel’s sharp take

Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel used humor to point out key flaws in the Greenland takeover idea. He noted we already have permission to “construct, install, maintain, and operate” bases in Greenland without invasion. He joked, “Why invade the cow when you can get the ice milk for free?” Kimmel added the plan contradicts Trump’s campaign promise to avoid foreign regime change. Moreover, he warned the scheme could alienate allies and stir more criticism from Republicans.

Why the Greenland takeover idea won’t work

First, there is a binding defense pact from 1951 between the United States, Greenland, and Denmark. This deal lets the U.S. build and maintain military facilities anywhere in Greenland. Second, some Republicans, like Mike Johnson, argue an invasion would be inappropriate and illegal. Third, an armed takeover of a friendly territory would violate international law and provoke global outrage. Therefore, the simple fact remains: we can station troops for free. There is no need for a Greenland takeover by force.

Republican pushback and party risks

Not all Republicans support the president’s aggressive stance. Some worry about long-term fallout within the party. They fear voters will see the plan as reckless and too extreme. Mike Johnson said an invasion is not “appropriate” and could undermine core conservative values. In turn, Trump risks angering his own party once more if he presses on. Consequently, he may face fresh challenges in Congress over military funding or new sanctions on Denmark.

NATO’s role and legal warnings

Former U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Rufus Gifford blasted the Greenland takeover talk as “reckless” and “clueless.” He pointed out that an attack on Greenland would force NATO members to defend Denmark. After all, Denmark is a NATO ally. If the United States attacked a fellow member, it would break the core NATO principle of mutual defense. As a result, American troops might end up fighting other NATO forces to protect Denmark’s territory. Clearly, that outcome is absurd and disastrous.

The real national security argument

President Trump claims he wants Greenland for its strategic position and resources. Yet the existing agreement already gives the U.S. all the rights it needs. Greenland sits closer to Russia and could help with Arctic monitoring. However, taking the land by force would disrupt intelligence sharing with allies. In addition, it would spark protests in Copenhagen and Washington alike. Thus, any supposed gain in security would quickly vanish amid diplomatic chaos.

Financial and diplomatic costs

Beyond legal hurdles, a Greenland takeover by force would cost billions in military spending. It would strain the Pentagon’s budget and force redeployment of troops already stationed across Europe. Plus, the U.S. would face international condemnation and possible sanctions. Key trading partners might impose tariffs or restrict American businesses. Over time, global markets could react badly to the sight of a superpower seizing a peaceful land. In short, the costs far outweigh any potential benefits.

Public opinion and global perception

Many people around the world see the U.S. as a defender of democracy and rule of law. An invasion of Greenland would shatter that image. Moreover, it would send a message that the United States can ignore its own treaties. In turn, other nations might question future U.S. commitments. They could doubt whether America will honor alliances in times of crisis. Therefore, the Greenland takeover talk risks undermining U.S. credibility worldwide.

The path forward without force

Instead of a bold takeover, the U.S. could strengthen ties with Denmark and Greenland through diplomacy. It can invest in Arctic research, environmental studies, and clean energy projects. By doing so, America would secure influence without firing a single shot. Likewise, it could modernize existing bases and improve joint military exercises. In that way, the U.S. can boost deterrence against rivals in the Arctic. All of this proves the Greenland takeover idea is unnecessary.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, the Greenland takeover plan is full of flaws. We already have rights to military installations under a long-standing pact. Major Republicans oppose an invasion as inappropriate and illegal. NATO would likely step in to defend Denmark if Greenland were attacked. Plus, the financial and diplomatic costs would be enormous. Instead, the U.S. can achieve its aims through stronger partnerships and smart investments.

Frequently asked questions

What does the 1951 agreement on Greenland cover?

The agreement lets the United States build, install, maintain, and operate military bases in Greenland. It has no time limit and gives broad rights without owning territory.

Why do some Republicans oppose the Greenland takeover idea?

They believe an invasion would be inappropriate, break international law, and damage U.S. alliances. They worry about wasting taxpayer money and harming America’s global image.

Could NATO defend Denmark if Greenland faced an attack?

Yes. Denmark is a NATO member. If the United States attacked Denmark’s territory, other NATO countries would be obliged to come to its defense under the alliance’s mutual defense clause.

How can the U.S. secure Greenland without using force?

Through stronger diplomacy and investment in Arctic research, environmental work, and joint military exercises. This approach boosts influence and security without a costly takeover.