Veto Calculator
Acquiring Greenland requires a cascade of consents that cannot be bypassed. At minimum: (1) Greenland's people must vote yes in a referendum under the 2009 Self-Government Act; (2) Denmark's Parliament must approve any territorial change; (3) The US Senate needs 67 votes for treaty ratification; (4) The House must appropriate funds. Currently, all non-US actors are publicly opposed. Even if US actors were aligned, the deal cannot happen without Greenlandic and Danish consent.
The Seven Actors Who Must Say Yes
For any lawful acquisition of Greenland, these seven actors each hold some form of veto or required consent. Click each section to explore the legal basis, form of consent, historical precedents, and current positions.
Greenland Electorate
The people of Greenland through referendum
Legal Basis
The Greenland Self-Government Act of 2009 explicitly recognizes Greenlanders as a "people" under international law with the right of self-determination. Section 21 states that any decision regarding Greenland's independence must be taken by the Greenlandic people.
Form of Consent
Binding referendum. While the Act specifically addresses independence, the principle of self-determination means any fundamental change in political status - including transfer to another sovereign - would require popular consent through referendum. International law standards require "freely expressed will" of the people.
Historical Precedents
1979 Home Rule referendum: 70.1% voted yes for home rule within Denmark. 2008 Self-Government referendum: 75.5% approved expanded autonomy. 2009 Self-Government Act: Codified the pathway to independence. No referendum on US acquisition has ever been held.
Vote Threshold
Simple majority likely required for any binding referendum, consistent with prior referendums. However, for a decision of this magnitude, political legitimacy would require a clear majority. Greenland's population is approximately 56,000, with roughly 40,000 eligible voters.
Polling shows strong opposition to joining the US. Premier Mute Egede has stated "Greenland is ours. We are not for sale." The independence movement favors sovereignty, not trading Danish oversight for American oversight.
Greenland Parliament (Inatsisartut)
31-member unicameral legislature
Legal Basis
The Inatsisartut has legislative authority over Greenlandic affairs under the Self-Government Act. While foreign policy remains with Denmark, matters affecting Greenland's fundamental political status require Inatsisartut involvement. The Parliament would need to authorize any referendum and approve any agreement affecting Greenland's sovereignty.
Form of Consent
Parliamentary resolution. Simple majority of 31 members (16 votes) would be required to authorize a referendum on political status. Any treaty or agreement affecting Greenland's governance would require Inatsisartut approval before implementation.
Historical Precedents
The Inatsisartut called the 2008 self-government referendum. In 2019, when Trump first floated acquisition, the Parliament passed a resolution reaffirming Greenland is "not for sale." The body has consistently supported the path toward independence from Denmark, not integration with the US.
Political Composition
Currently led by Inuit Ataqatigiit (IA), a left-green party favoring gradual independence. Coalition government with Naleraq. Main opposition Siumut has historically been more open to economic partnerships but has not endorsed US acquisition.
The current government coalition opposes US acquisition. Premier Egede's IA party favors independence but as a sovereign nation, not as a US territory. No major party supports acquisition.
Denmark Executive
Prime Minister and Government
Legal Basis
Under the Danish Constitution, foreign affairs and defense remain under Danish authority even with Greenland's self-government. The Prime Minister leads treaty negotiations. However, the Self-Government Act requires Greenland's consent for matters of fundamental importance to Greenland, creating a dual-consent requirement.
Form of Consent
Government approval to negotiate + Parliamentary ratification. The PM and Foreign Minister would need to authorize negotiations. Any resulting agreement would require Folketing approval. Denmark cannot unilaterally transfer Greenland without Greenlandic consent under the 2009 Act.
Historical Precedents
1917: Denmark sold the Danish West Indies (now US Virgin Islands) for $25 million. 1941: Allowed US bases in Greenland during WWII. 1951: Defense agreement for Thule Air Base. 2019: PM Frederiksen called Trump's acquisition idea "absurd."
Constitutional Constraints
Danish Constitution Section 19 gives the King (acting through government) authority over foreign affairs. Section 20 allows delegation of sovereignty to international authorities with 5/6 Folketing majority. Territorial cession would likely require constitutional amendment procedures.
PM Mette Frederiksen has repeatedly stated "Greenland is not for sale." After Trump's January 2025 refusal to rule out force, Danish officials expressed "serious concern." Denmark has increased defense spending in the Arctic region in response.
Denmark Parliament (Folketing)
179-member unicameral legislature
Legal Basis
The Folketing must ratify all treaties affecting Danish sovereignty or territory. Under Section 19 of the Constitution, significant foreign policy decisions require parliamentary consent. Any agreement to transfer Greenland would unquestionably require Folketing approval. Greenland and the Faroe Islands each have 2 seats in the Folketing.
Form of Consent
Parliamentary ratification. Standard treaties require simple majority (90 of 179 votes). However, constitutional scholars argue territorial cession would require the enhanced procedure of Section 20 (5/6 majority = 150 votes) or even constitutional amendment (requiring an election and second vote).
Historical Precedents
1917 Virgin Islands sale: Folketing approved after referendum in the islands showed support. 1973 EC membership: Required Section 20 procedure with 5/6 majority. 1979, 2009: Approved Greenland home rule and self-government acts. The Folketing has never voted on selling Greenland.
Political Reality
Across the political spectrum, from left to right, no Danish party supports selling Greenland. The 4 Greenlandic MPs would certainly vote against. Even parties skeptical of the EU and international institutions have rallied around protecting Danish/Greenlandic sovereignty from US pressure.
No political party in the Folketing supports selling Greenland. The issue has unified the normally fractious Danish parliament. Even the nationalist Danish People's Party opposes the idea, viewing it as an affront to Danish sovereignty.
US President
Executive authority over foreign affairs
Legal Basis
Article II of the Constitution vests the President with treaty-making power (with Senate advice and consent). The President conducts foreign relations and would negotiate any acquisition agreement. However, the President cannot unilaterally acquire territory - Senate ratification and congressional implementation are required.
Form of Consent
Treaty negotiation and signature. The President (through State Department) would negotiate terms with Denmark. Presidential signature initiates the ratification process. But signature alone does not make the treaty binding - Senate consent is constitutionally required for territorial acquisition treaties.
Historical Precedents
1867 Alaska: Secretary Seward negotiated purchase, Senate ratified. 1898 Treaty of Paris: McKinley negotiated acquisition of Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam; Senate ratified. 1917 Virgin Islands: Wilson negotiated, Senate approved. All required Senate consent.
Limits on Executive Power
The President cannot acquire territory through executive agreement alone for permanent incorporation. While some temporary arrangements might use executive agreements, transferring sovereignty over inhabited territory requires the full treaty process with Senate supermajority.
President Trump has repeatedly expressed interest in acquiring Greenland, refused to rule out military force or economic coercion, and discussed tariffs on Denmark. This represents the only actor actively pushing for acquisition.
US Senate
Treaty ratification (Article II, Section 2)
Legal Basis
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution: The President "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur." This supermajority requirement is among the highest thresholds in American constitutional law.
Form of Consent
67 votes (if all 100 Senators present). The Senate must vote on a resolution of ratification. This cannot be bypassed through reconciliation, nuclear option, or other procedural maneuvers. Treaty ratification is one of the few areas where the filibuster is constitutionally irrelevant - the 2/3 threshold is the Constitution itself.
Historical Precedents
1867 Alaska: Senate ratified 37-2. 1898 Treaty of Paris: Ratified 57-27 (barely 2/3, very contentious). 1917 Virgin Islands: Ratified by voice vote. 1919 Treaty of Versailles: Failed to reach 2/3 - demonstrates treaties can fail even with presidential support.
Current Composition
Republicans hold 53 seats; Democrats 47. Even with unified Republican support (unlikely), 14 Democratic votes would be needed. Many Republican senators have expressed skepticism about acquisition through coercion. Foreign Relations Committee would hold hearings first.
No formal Senate position. Some Republicans have expressed openness to "if they want to join," but opposition to coercion. Democrats largely opposed. Reaching 67 votes would be extremely difficult, especially for an agreement obtained through threats or pressure.
US House of Representatives
Appropriations power (Article I, Section 7)
Legal Basis
Article I, Section 7: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." Article I, Section 9: "No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law." Any purchase price or administrative costs require House-originated appropriations.
Form of Consent
Appropriations legislation. Simple majority (218 of 435 votes) needed to pass spending bills. The House would need to appropriate funds for: (1) any purchase price, (2) territorial administration, (3) infrastructure, (4) transition costs. Without appropriations, the treaty cannot be implemented.
Historical Precedents
1867 Alaska: House appropriated $7.2 million purchase price (delayed and contentious - "Seward's Folly"). 1898 Philippines: House appropriated $20 million. 1917 Virgin Islands: House appropriated $25 million. The House has historically funded territorial acquisitions, but after political debate.
Additional Role: Implementing Legislation
Beyond appropriations, the House (with Senate) would need to pass organic acts establishing territorial governance, citizenship status, legal framework, and federal program applicability. This is extensive legislation requiring both chambers.
Republicans hold a narrow majority. No formal position on Greenland acquisition. Fiscal conservatives may balk at acquisition costs (estimates range from $50 billion to over $1 trillion). Democrats would likely oppose any acquisition achieved through coercion.
- The consent cascade cannot be bypassed: All seven actors must say yes. Currently only one (US President) is actively pursuing acquisition.
- Self-determination is legally binding: The 2009 Self-Government Act makes Greenlandic consent mandatory, not optional.
- The US Senate 2/3 threshold is constitutional: It cannot be changed by rule, reconciliation, or nuclear option.
- Coercion doesn't eliminate consent requirements: It just makes any resulting arrangement legally void and internationally illegitimate.
- All non-US actors are currently opposed: Denmark and Greenland have been emphatic. Without their consent, there is no lawful path forward.
Return to the main Greenland Acquisition hub with interactive tools and full analysis.
How each pathway actually works: basing, cession, independence-first. What breaks each one.
Why "military option on the table" rhetoric triggers international law alarms. Article 2(4) explained.
When the US pressures a NATO ally over territory, the alliance architecture breaks. Here's how.
67 Senate votes, House appropriations, implementing legislation. The domestic hurdles.
Can Trump just buy it? Did we already try? What about Alaska? Your questions answered.