By John Q. Hosedrinker 
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller presented a novel legal defense for President Trump’s Greenland acquisition plans, arguing that Denmark’s inability to adequately defend the territory justifies the U.S. claim. Miller asserted that Denmark’s “tiny” military and economy failed to meet the historical criteria for territorial control. Trump has threatened military action and imposed tariffs on several European countries until a deal is reached, claiming the acquisition is crucial for world peace and American security. Furthermore, Trump believes the acquisition is necessary due to perceived threats from China and Russia in the Arctic region, leading to widespread protests in Denmark and Greenland.
Read the original article here
Stephen Miller’s actions, specifically his invention of a new legal theory to justify Donald Trump’s obsession with Greenland, are nothing short of alarming. It seems his primary tactic is to create a “law” that states a nation’s right to its territory is contingent on its ability to defend it, improve it, and inhabit it. This is a terrifying throwback to the justifications used by empires of the past to seize land, including the Roman Empire, the British Empire, the Spanish conquistadors, and, of course, the Nazis.
This so-called “law” echoes historical narratives, like the one used by early settlers of the United States to justify the displacement and genocide of Indigenous populations. They argued that because Native Americans didn’t “improve” the land with buildings or farming, they had no legal right to it. It’s a textbook example of imperialistic tactics, where a more powerful entity uses a flimsy legal argument to justify taking what doesn’t belong to them.
Furthermore, this move directly clashes with existing international agreements, most notably the NATO treaty. Article 5 of the treaty, to which the United States is a signatory, clearly states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. This treaty obligates the US to defend nations like Denmark, and specifically covers Greenland, which is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark. Miller’s rhetoric, suggesting Denmark’s inability to defend Greenland justifies its acquisition by the US, is a direct challenge to the foundational principles of NATO.
The implications are deeply concerning. This is a blatant rejection of international law and a move towards a “might makes right” philosophy. This kind of thinking erodes the trust that other nations have in the US and could destabilize the world order. It’s a move toward a return to perpetual warfare, where stronger nations can simply seize the territory of the weaker.
It’s crucial to recognize the underlying motivations. There doesn’t seem to be a sound reason for the interest in Greenland, other than Trump’s ego and his desire to make history, no matter the consequences. It appears to be another attempt to dismantle established systems and rewrite the rules to suit a particular agenda. It’s a fundamental attack on property rights, as it implies that no nation truly owns its territory if it can’t defend it.
Stephen Miller’s views appear to ignore the complexities of the modern world. His simplistic “law” disregards the role of alliances and treaties in maintaining global stability. The United States is not an island, and its actions have global consequences.
It is disheartening to see such disregard for international law and established agreements. This is a call to action. We must push back against this dangerous ideology and defend the principles of international cooperation and respect for territorial integrity. We should ensure those responsible are held accountable for their actions and that their dangerous ideology does not go unpunished.