EDITOR'S CORNER: Why Is Trump Obsessed with Greenland?

On 3rd January 2026, U.S. President Donald Trump led a military operation in Venezuela to capture President Nicolás Maduro on alleged drug charges. The mission was swift and ruthless, lasting only a few hours, and it successfully resulted in the arrest of Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. They are now in New York, facing trial on drug-related charges.

On top of this, Trump has been threatening several other countries in Latin America, and has even gone as far as claiming that the U.S. will take Greenland because “they need it for their defence.”

In this blog post, we’ll briefly look at the Venezuela operation, and then spend more time analyzing what it means for global geopolitics—and more specifically, why Trump seems so obsessed with Greenland.

 

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN VENEZUELA?

On 3 January 2026, United States forces carried out a rapid military operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. According to U.S. officials, the operation targeted Maduro on long-standing drug trafficking and narco-terrorism charges.

The raid was conducted in Caracas and concluded within hours, with both individuals taken into custody and flown out of the country. Delta Force, an elite special ops unit, entered Maduro’s compound and captured him. It was not an easy operation. It took months to prepare, beginning in August. No one on the U.S. side was injured, but up to 80 people on the Venezuelan side were killed. This included Maduro’s entire security detail, which was reportedly made up of Cuban special forces.

Later that day, the White House confirmed that Maduro and Flores were taken to the United States. They are expected to face federal charges in New York and are reportedly being represented by the same lawyer who defended Julian Assange. The Trump administration said the operation was limited in scope and aimed solely at removing Maduro from power. Officials stressed that the U.S. is not at war with Venezuela, but Trump warned several other Latin American countries he accused of “bringing drugs into the USA” that similar actions could be taken against them.

The operation has sparked strong reactions across Latin America and beyond, with several governments calling for emergency diplomatic consultations. International organizations have raised concerns about the precedent set by the arrest of a sitting head of state, warning that it could have far-reaching consequences for regional stability and international law. European leaders’ reactions have been tepid at best, calling for international law to be respected but stopping short of directly condemning Trump’s actions.

WAS THIS LEGAL? WHAT ABOUT THE GEOPOLITICAL IMPLICATIONS?

The first question everyone asked was: was this operation legal? This is because Trump did not get any approval for it. Not from the U.S. Congress, which he would normally be expected to do, and not from any international organization such as the United Nations. His actions in Venezuela are widely criticized because it is against international law to use a foreign military to capture a sitting head of state. Trump says this was a police action, but most observers see it as an act of war. If Venezuela were a stronger power, it could launch an armed response against the United States and be within reasonable grounds to claim it was at war.

Another reason the international community is concerned is that this operation fits a growing pattern of major powers using direct force to achieve political and legal goals beyond their borders. This is what Russia attempted in Ukraine, and many believe China intends to do the same in Taiwan. Western leaders are worried this sets a dangerous precedent, especially since the United States has long positioned itself as the leader of the free world and a defender of democracy and the rule of law.

This action could also make countries like North Korea and Iran extremely nervous that the U.S. might attempt similar operations against them. Trump has already threatened countries such as Mexico, Colombia, and Cuba with military action if their leaders “don’t bend to U.S. rule.” The incident is likely to accelerate bloc politics, deepen distrust of U.S. intentions, and push some countries closer to rival powers in search of security guarantees.

Many people argue that there is no real international law, only rules that countries choose to follow. But the UN Charter generally condemns the seizure of a sitting president by a foreign power, prohibits the use of force, and restricts extraterritorial law enforcement. Even if this operation is justified domestically through criminal indictments, many legal experts argue that it bypasses established extradition processes and undermines international courts.

We will now have to see what happens in U.S. courts, and whether the international community does anything more than issue tepid condemnations on social media.

WHAT ABOUT GREENLAND?

Now let’s talk about Greenland. Trump has repeatedly said that “the USA needs Greenland.” He frames this as a matter of security, territory, and strategy. Greenland sits in a critical position in the Arctic and lies along the shortest flight path between Russia and the United States for ballistic missiles.

The problem is that Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, which is a NATO member and one of America’s closest allies. For Trump to openly threaten an ally like this is extraordinary. Everyone understands that the region is becoming more important, with melting ice opening new shipping routes and exposing large reserves of rare earth minerals, oil, and gas. For Washington, influence over Greenland is not just about geography, but about staying ahead of rivals like China and Russia, both of which have been increasing their Arctic presence. By openly stating that the U.S. “needs” Greenland, Trump is signaling a blunt, transactional approach to geopolitics where strategic value outweighs diplomacy.

This rhetoric also fits into a wider pattern of territorial assertiveness. Just as the Venezuela operation shows a willingness to bypass traditional diplomatic and legal channels, talk of taking Greenland reinforces the idea that power is again being exercised in raw, almost 19th-century terms. For Denmark and the European Union, these statements are deeply unsettling. They raise fears about sovereignty, alliance stability, and the erosion of post-war norms. Even without any formal move, the mere suggestion destabilizes relationships and forces smaller states to rethink their security assumptions.

Legally and politically, any attempt to acquire Greenland without the clear consent of its people and Denmark would be extremely problematic. Greenland is not a commodity that can simply be bought or taken. It has its own government, its own identity, and a growing independence movement. Such a move would likely push Denmark to invoke NATO’s Article 4, and possibly Article 5. The United States, as the largest NATO member, would then be sitting at the same table and could block any collective defence action. That kind of scenario would risk tearing NATO apart.

CONCLUSION 

The events in Venezuela and the rhetoric around Greenland point to a clear and troubling shift in global politics. They suggest a world where power is being exercised more bluntly, where sovereignty is treated as negotiable, and where traditional diplomatic and legal norms are increasingly sidelined. This is not just about Trump, or even the United States, it reflects a wider erosion of the rules-based international order.

If this approach becomes normalized, the consequences will be serious. Smaller states will feel more exposed, alliances will become more fragile, and rival powers will be encouraged to act with similar disregard for borders and law. Venezuela and Greenland, taken together, are warning signs: the era of restrained power may be ending, and a far more unstable one may be beginning.