Why US can't take over Greenland and 4 star generals would HAVE to refuse an order to do it illegally

Robert-Walker · 2026-01-05T07:38:54+00:00

There is no way for the US to take over Greenland. The US ALREADY has a base in Greenland. It already has soldiers there under a sharing agreement with Green...

Gamemaster24681012

The White House said that Military Forces is an option. Is this just words, or something to worry about?

ArjanSandhu73

Gamemaster24681012 Just words.

ConnorSFG

https://archive.is/20260106105803/https://www.theatlantic.com/national-security/2026/01/greenland-trump-venezuela-nato/685511 he seems legitimately serious about this now and might force his way into doing so; i’m really darn scared, honestly. I worry if he can’t get greenland he’ll just surrender or trade away ukraine…

Robert-Walker

That Atlantic article gives no details about how the US would seize Greenland. All it says is:

Arguing that possession is nine-tenths of the law, Trump simply declares that Greenland now belongs to the United States.

But what does that accomplish? The Greenlander parliament would still meet. The Greenlander courts would use Danish not US law. They would use the euro as currency and pay taxes to Denmark. They would continue to have Danish passports and travel throughout the EU travel area. They’d be recognized as Danish by all countries except the USA.

And highly unlikely that the USA would refuse to recognize their passports.

They would continue to pay import duties on US goods and no import duties on Danish imports.

Trump could issue an executive order saying “Greenland is part of the USA” but it would be unconstitutional and struck down by the courts under the Supremacy clause of the US constitution which says that any treaties the US enters into has supremacy over both Federal and state laws unless the treaty itself is unconstitutional.

The US belongs to the NATO treaty which is constitutional and there is no way that it is consistent with the NATO treaty or the UN Charter to declare that Greenland is part fo the USA.

The author of this article doesn’t seem to have heard of the Supremacy clause in the US constitution which is an extraordinary journalistic lapse.

QUOTE
Article VI, Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artVI-C2-1/ALDE_00013395/

How can an American journalist not know about this clause - or if they do - why don’t they mention it?

I don’t believe they are unaware of this clause so it is a click bait story and not just that, also sensationalist as it leads with a paragraph that says something that is clearly untrue to anyone with basic knowledge of the US Constitution.

So this is a VERY LOW QUAL.ITY ARTICLE that only belongs in the trash bin and should never have been published.

BLOG: Trump can’t do strikes on Greenland
— as US PROTECTS it
— military control would violate constitutional supremacy of treaties
— no interest in Denmark’s request to negotiate
— why he can’t be serious
You can read it here:
https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/trump-cant-do-strikes-on-greenland

ChrisEtrata

Robert-Walker more and more republicans are coming out saying they don’t see a military option happening including senate and house heads. Also, rubio is meeting with the head of Denmark next week. Im feeling a bit better

SteveWoodford

Robert-Walker My biggest concern (and this may sound far-fetched, but hear me out) is that Trump’s people find a general willing to go rogue and break the law with the promise of being pardoned. They cherry pick enough soldiers who are ignorant or unaware of the illegality of what they are doing and go ahead with the operation. Trump’s people know full well that it will fail HOWEVER it gets the US kicked out of NATO without having to go through congress, which is their ultimate goal.

I know it sounds a little like a Tom Clancy novel but it’s something that’s been going through my mind today.

I won’t be offended if you tell me this sounds ridiculous.

stevie-mccarthy

Rubio said just a bit ago he plans to meet next week with officials from Denmark about Greenland.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/07/greenland-rubio-denmark-trump.html

Robert-Walker

stevie-mccarthy Good find I will add it to my debunk thanks. Hopefully get more clarity after Marco Rubio talks to officials from Denmark and Greenland.

It also says that Denmark will be spending a significant amount on security for Greenland 88 billion Danish kroner ($13.8 billion).

Greenland has expertise the US doesn’t have. Trump poked fun at them for buying dog sleighs - but that is the only way to get around Greenland on the ground in the Arctic winter. US soldiers wouldn’t last long out there without dog sleds.

So the US depend on the Danes for patrolling the most remote areas of Greenland in winter, they can’t do it themselves.

Their military ships can only get to Greenland in summer. Apart from that it’s planes and motorized sleds.

That’s one of the things I found when researching for my article and should add it in.

The Danes have an elite dog sled patrol which patrols Greenland in winter.

QUOTE The Danish Special Forces (source) are comprised of the most elite of the most elite soldiers that the country has to offer. Amongst these Special Forces units are specialised maritime operators, the Frogmen, and the specialised unconventional warfare unit, the Jaeger Corps. However, Denmark is also home to the only special forces dogsled unit. Unique in nature due to its unique missions, the Sirius Dog Sled Patrol work in some of the coldest and most remote regions of the globe to ensure Denmark’s security.

https://greydynamics.com/sirius-dog-sled-patrol-denmarks-arctic-special-forces/
US soldiers just aren’t trained to do that. They would be limited to regions that can be visited on motorized sleds within range of fuel dumps.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_Dog_Sled_Patrol

QUOTE STARTS

He was asked why the administration had not accepted Denmark’s request for a discussion about the island.

“I’ll be meeting with them next week,” Rubio replied.

Rubio was asked by a reporter if he would withdraw the option of using the U.S. military to take over Greenland.

“I’m not here to talk about Denmark or military intervention,” Rubio said, before reiterating his plans to meet with Danish officials next week.

“We’ll have conversations with them then, but I’m not adding things further … to that today.”

On Tuesday evening, Danish Defense Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Troels Lund Poulsen said Denmark would spend 88 billion Danish kroner ($13.8 billion) on rearming Greenland given “the serious security situation we find ourselves in.”

“I hope that the United States also recognizes that fact and is ready to cooperate on our common interest in Arctic security,” Poulsen said in a statement.

“Because Denmark would like to continue to be an ally of the United States,” he said. “But that requires a mutual willingness to show respect and cooperation.”
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/07/greenland-rubio-denmark-trump.html

This shows the current sea ice extent today. All of northern Greenland is inaccessible by sea

https://nsidc.org/sea-ice-today

Robert-Walker

SteveWoodford Okay good question. The answer is that Trump would be impeached for doing that.

Also I think that would lead to a criminal case against Trump as an illegal uses of the pardon power.

He has absolute immunity for the pardon power. But that immunity doesn’t extend to using it for other purposes. The Supreme Court gave the example of bribes for pardons. Here it would be using the pardon power to force the US to conduct unconstitutional acts. That would likely be criminal for Trump.

He is absolutely immune for his pardon power. But using the pardon power to force a general to conduct unconstitutional acts CAN’T be something he is immune for.

The underlying test here, according to the Supreme Court in its immunity decision is whether taking out a legal case would inhibit future presidents from carrying out their normal duties.

There is no way it can ever inhibit a president from carrying out his duties if he is not permitted to use the pardon power to force generals to conduct unconstitutional acts.

It’s not very clear how such a case would be conducted given that by the previous Supreme Court ruling, they can’t directly use the pardon as evidence in the case but they could certainly use the consequences such as the orders he gave to the General. They would prosecute him for those orders and would need to find legal ways to link it to the pardon without bringing in the pardon itself as evidence.

Also impeachment is not a legal process. It has to be for high crimes and misdemeanours but it’s not a court. Basically, misdemeanours are anything that the legislators decide are misdemeanours. They vote as legislators and as representatives of the people based on their personal views. They are not required to give any legal arguments or link their vote to any legislation or the Constitution.

I’m sure that many Republicans would join the Democrats in calling for impeachment in this case.

So he would first be impeached and then the criminal cases would start and an action like this would likely also revive all the criminal cases that were suspended when he was elected.

I’d need to check but this would be very serious. I think Trump would likely get life imprisonment quite possibly without any possibility of early release - he’d likely be in prison until he dies.

And the soldiers would of course be indicted and Trump could pardon them all but that would add to reasons to impeach him.

That basically is what stops it, impeachment first and then the legal cases after impeachment.

Some scholars say it is also possible to go straight to a criminal trial of a president without impeachment though that’s never been done.

And there is no way that Congress would side with Trump And the US wouldn’t be booted out of NATO while all this is going on, the allies would wait to see the outcome of the impeachment.

It’s all academic as I’m sure Trump doesn’t have anything like this in mind.

It would achieve nothing. As it’s unconstitutional, then it would just be an executive order that has no effect as it is unconstitutional and some rogue soldiers in Greenland following unconstitutional orders.

It wouldn’t make Greenland part of the USA even in US law.

Robert-Walker

He would have to be impeached because voters would see how patently illegal it all is. They would see the protests by Greenlanders every day outside their parliament and they’d see TV footage of soldiers forcing citizens of Greenland to do things against their will at gunpoint. The legal cases would be highly publicised and Trump’s pardon of the General and the illegality of what he did.

There is no way that most ordinary Americans would want to vote for a representative that permits this so they would be lobbying their representatives to impeach Trump.

RicardoGonalves

I have a thought that’s been bothering me; it might be bold, but I don’t know. I’d like to hear what you think. I’ll outline it:

1. Trump somehow takes control of Greenland;

2. The rest of Europe reacts with sanctions and similar measures against the United States, which could lead to the dismantling of NATO;

3. Putin sees this as an opportunity to attack the Baltic states.

Robert-Walker

RicardoGonalves First, there is no way that 1. happens.

TRANSCRIPT

Representative Ted Lieu (Democrat for California), former Judge Advocate General (JAG) - a lawyer (with a law degree) who advises generals:

I served on active duty in themilitary for four years and thenadditional 21 years in the reserves.
I was a JAG.

There is absolutely no legal justification whatsoever to use military force against a NATO ally against Greenland.

And if any military member, including the generals on down to enlisted members, if any of them participate in the use of military force against Greenland without congressional authorization, they are following illegal orders.

That’s simply a fact.

He earned his Juris Doctor degree from Georgetown University.

Lieu served on active duty with the United States Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps from 1995 to 1999.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Lieu

Soldiers HAVE to refuse illegal orders like that.

And they are directly responsible if they follow them, it’s no excuse to say they are following orders.

Such an operation wouoldn’t end with Trumpi in control of Greenland.

It would end with all the soldiers and generals involved going through both the civilian courts and court martial in parallel cases. Many would end up in prison for many years. :And Trump would surely be impeachedand after impeachment he’d end up in prison too.

It’s illegal by the supremacy clause in the US Constitution: all the treaies that the US has ratified are binding law in the US on everyone including Trump. Including the UN charter and including the NATO treaty.

So we are not talking about cases in the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice here.

We are talking about cases in US courts.

I go into details here

RicardoGonalves

Given the slowness with which Europeans often achieve unity, in the event of a potential NATO “collapse,” it would be tempting for Putin to turn to the Baltic states, which are smaller and where NATO is “non-existent.”

Robert-Walker

So then the other thing that misses - and it’s understandable you don’t know as the media almost never explain.

NATO countries have pre-committed 300,000 soldiers to go to the defence of any country in their need within the alliance as soon as article 5 is declared - as needed. A few thousand and the fighter jets would get there almost immediately. There are several thousand already stationed in the Baltic states as well as fighter jets in Lithuania so they would be there already. The rest would arrive at various periods from days to weeks.

Any Russian build up would take weeks to get to hundred of thousands, plenty of time.

And the US does commit some soldiers amongst those numbers but not the first responders, they come much later as they have to cross the Atlantic.

So it’s not much different without the USA.

US is more important in the air and for intelligence., But European countries have practiced exercises without US involvement to show they can function without the US.

But the most important deployments come in the first few minutes to hours.

Admiral Radakin says that NATO would swiftly have control of the air AND the sea.

We see both of those in Ukraine. The Ukrainians with a tenth of the fighter jets of Russia and older equipment were able to keep off the entire Russian airforce after spring 2022 even before they had modern air defences.

F-35 fighter jet pilots tell us they could get control of the entire air space of occupied Ukraine within 24 hours if they were given F-35 fighter jets and permitted to fly for Ukraine.

And Ukraine just with its missiles without a navy has been able to force the Rusian Black Sea Fleet out of Crimea and sink the flagship and a third of the fleet.

NATO is far more capable. Russia ouldn’t have a black sea fleet any more if it faced NATO.

NATO would have complete control of the air and sea very quickly and they now think about blocking rather than retaking if Russia did anything aggressive.

Admiral Radakin says Russia won’t even try.

Because of how quickly the UK could get control of the air and sea and how quickly the soldiers could get there Radakin said that we can immediately block any attempt at aggression - not about regaining lost territory but just blocking the attempt as soon as it starts. He said:

.. I feel incredibly confident that that’s what NATO’s got and that’s how NATO can keep its citizens safe.

And it’s the overmatch that deters Russia. And I have never been clearer than any time in my career about the success that NATO is having in deterring Russia.

Russia does not want to fight with NATO and Russia does not want a nuclear war and we should be really confident of that.

See my:

BLOG: No, Putin CAN’T attack NATO
— it is way overmatched in the sea and air
— any attempt would be blocked immediately
You can read it here:
https://robertinventor.substack.com/p/no-putin-cant-attack-nato-it-is-way

Another way to think of this.

Zelensky is confident he can keep out Russia with just the Ukrainian military if it is equipped with the most up to date NATO quality gear plus symbolic air and sea patrols from its partners.

That’s a “mini NATO” far less capable than the European countries in NATO. Only a few thousand token allied troops.

If that is sufficient then of course the Euroupean part of NATO is more than sufficient.

Robert-Walker

Short summary:

Trump can’t take control of Greenland. If he tries and anyone is badly advised and actually follows his orders then they will all end up in criminal cases in US courts under the US Constitution’s Supremacy clause (for supremacy of treaties) and Trump also would likely be impeached and then charged and convicted.
The rest of Europe would likely use targeted sanctions in that impossible situation but it would not dismantle NATO. It would just mean the rest of NATO can no longer rely on the US. Just the European branch of NATO is well able to stop Putin, he can be stopped even by a “mini NATO” built inside Ukraine and consisting almost entirely of Ukrainian soldiers but with more up to date NATO equipment than today.
This would not be any kind of opportunity as the rest of NATO would stay united.

But it’s not going to happen.

ChrisEtrata

This sounds like trump plans to take over greenland even if its clearly against the law and is banking on the idea that courts are too afraid to stop him. He would rather risk impeachment than listen to actual law even if it means tensions with europe

Robert-Walker

ChrisEtrata First, Trump has no power over the courts. That is by design in the Constitution, that the judges can only be removed by impeachment. So the justices are not afraid of him.

Also it would be all those who obeyed his illegal orders would be in the courts to start with - the general, officers and soldiers who would be prosecuted in the courts.

Trump most likely has to be impeached first by legislators. He would only be prosecuted later after the impeachment.

[there is a theoretical process which could let a president be tried in a court before impeachment but it’s never been attempted]

And the thing is he wouldn’t even end up owning Greenland. It would only be de facto. Nobody would recognize it legally. Even the US couldn’t recognize Greenland as part of the US without the consent of the inhabitants. If Trump declared it part of the USA after taking it over, the Supreme Court would strike that down as unconstitutional.

So if anyone did follow his order, they end up in prison. Greenland remains part of NATO and part of Denmark. Trump is impeached and likely later imprisoned too.

I go into more detail in my Greenland debunk here which is an expanded version of this post:

ChrisEtrata It would be a straightforward legal case. The justices can’t stop a case because they are afraid. Trump can’t fire justices. The only thing he can do is to issue pardons.

« Previous Page