Can a president threaten to annex another country's territory by force — and what do constitutional principles and religious traditions say about conquest and sovereignty?
The Constitution gives Congress — not the president — the power to go to war. International law prohibits threatening or seizing another nation's territory. NATO allies have treaty obligations of mutual defense. And the people of Greenland have said no. Religious traditions and the Declaration of Independence agree on one fundamental point: governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed. A people cannot be acquired like a real estate deal.
Religious perspectives
Religious traditions have grappled with the ethics of territorial conquest for millennia — and the consensus is remarkably clear:
Judaism: While the Hebrew Bible contains conquest narratives, the prophetic tradition powerfully reframes power. Micah 4:3-4 envisions that nations "shall beat their swords into plowshares" and "every man shall sit under his vine and fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid." The prophetic ideal is not conquest but peaceful coexistence. The Talmud teaches that the destruction of the Temple came because of "baseless hatred" — aggression without just cause brings ruin.
Christianity: Jesus rejected territorial power when Satan offered him "all the kingdoms of the world" (Matthew 4:8-9). He told Pilate: "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight" (John 18:36). The Christian just war tradition — developed by Augustine and Aquinas — requires that war be a last resort for defensive purposes, proportional, and authorized by legitimate authority. Threatening to annex an allied nation's territory for commercial or strategic gain meets none of these criteria.
Islam: The Quran explicitly prohibits aggression: "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors" (2:190). Islamic law recognizes the sovereignty of other nations and peoples. Territorial conquest for resources or strategic advantage — against a people who do not wish to be conquered — is not jihad; it is aggression.
The moral question: Greenland is home to 57,000 people, primarily Indigenous Inuit, who have repeatedly and overwhelmingly (85% in polls) said they do not wish to become part of the United States. Religious traditions across the board hold that a people's right to self-determination — to decide their own governance — is fundamental. Treating people as assets to be acquired is a denial of their dignity.
Constitutional & legal framework
The threat to annex Greenland — by force, coercion, or tariffs against NATO allies — raises serious constitutional and international law questions:
War powers: Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress — not the president — the power to declare war. A military seizure of another nation's sovereign territory without congressional authorization would be unconstitutional. Even threatening military action against a NATO ally exceeds presidential authority.
International law: The UN Charter (which the U.S. signed and ratified) prohibits the "threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state" (Article 2, §4). Forcible annexation violates the most fundamental principle of the post-WWII international order — the order the United States itself built.
NATO obligations: Denmark is a founding NATO ally. Article 5 of the NATO treaty — which the U.S. invoked after 9/11 when allies came to America's defense — provides that an attack on one member is an attack on all. Threatening to invade an ally's territory while expecting that same alliance to protect American interests is a contradiction the treaty was designed to prevent.
Tariff coercion: The president imposed tariffs on Denmark and six other European allies explicitly to coerce Denmark into ceding Greenland. Using IEEPA emergency tariff authority — already under Supreme Court review — for territorial acquisition has no legal precedent. Multiple Republican senators (Murkowski, Tillis, Paul) called this unconstitutional and "beyond stupid."
Historical context: The U.S. attempted to purchase Greenland in 1867, 1910, and 1946 — Denmark refused each time. The U.S. already maintains Pituffik Space Base in Greenland under a 1951 defense agreement. National security experts note that America's strategic interests in the Arctic can be — and already are being — achieved through partnership rather than annexation.
Self-determination: Greenland's parliament unanimously rejected U.S. acquisition. The Greenlandic people are not a commodity. The Constitution's own principles — "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" — apply universally, not only to Americans.
Sources cited:BibleTorahConstitution