The Lens: Trump’s Greenland bid sparks global debate on sovereignty

US President Donald Trump’s threats to annex Greenland represent a revival of colonialism, disguised as an “America First” rhetoric and marked by a disregard for national sovereignty.

Greenland has long been viewed as a geopolitical prize, with its strategic location and economic potential hard to overlook for the US.

The island is rich in rare earth minerals that are vital for clean energy, and the melting Arctic ice opens up new shipping routes.

But likening control over Greenland to a “real estate deal” reduces a living Indigenous homeland to a commodity.

The US military base at Pituffik, established in 1951, already serves American interests. Trump’s fixation on owning Greenland draws a parallel to colonial domination, where powerful nations cherry-pick territories, dismissing their culture and the people who call them home.

Trump has repeatedly claimed that annexation would ensure “national security”, but he is subverting the security of Greenlanders themselves. A January 2025 poll indicated that 85 per cent of Greenlanders reject US rule.

Despite Greenland halting oil exploration and aiming for 90 per cent renewable energy by 2030, Trump’s interest in opening resource extraction for a pro-fossil fuel agenda exploits Greenland’s climate crisis for profit.

International law clearly states that annexation without consent violates the principle of self-determination.

By not ruling out military and economic coercion, Trump’s language normalises threats and underscores a belief in American exceptionalism.

Although Denmark has sent Greenland a US$2 billion defence package, Europe’s overall silence to Trump’s threats is troubling.

Home to 56,000 mostly Indigenous residents, Greenland is no wasteland up for grabs. The US should champion Greenland’s independence, not sabotage it.

Read up on the issue in last week’s The Lens

The city of Baltimore in the US state of Maryland joined three other groups in a lawsuit against US President Donald Trump and his administration, asking a federal court to declare unconstitutional executive orders that seek to end diversity programmes.

Trump has attempted to remove government support for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices within the federal government, threatening economic sanctions and dismissals.

The lawsuit filed in the US District Court for Maryland alleged that the orders exceeded the president’s authority under the US Constitution. The lawsuit asked the court for preliminary and permanent injunctions to block the orders.

“In the United States, there is no king,” reads the lawsuit from the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, the Restaurant Opportunities Centres United and the city council of Baltimore.

Trump campaigned on ending programmes that help women, ethnic minorities and LGBTQ people obtain government jobs and contracts, saying such practices unfairly punish more qualified applicants.

Civil rights and pro-equality groups argue that the programmes are necessary to correct discrimination in a country where women and minorities did not achieve legal equality until the 20th century and continue to lag behind their white male counterparts in pay and opportunity.

Trump’s executive order rescinded the diversity policies of the Biden administration. It sought the widespread dismissal of federal government employees with the directive to “terminate, to the maximum extent allowed by law, all DEI, DEIA, and ‘environmental justice’ offices and positions.”

The order targeted publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations, foundations, state and local bar and medical associations and university endowments.
Reuters

• What are some potential outcomes or consequences of eliminating DEI programmes?

• Is the backlash against Trump’s orders justified?