Nicole Russell Discovers International Law Is Just A Suggestion, Publishes Column Anyway
USA Today Editorial Standards Have Entered Their Greenland Phase
Nicole Russell’s January 21, 2026 column on Trump’s Greenland ambitions deserves a harder look than she gives her own arguments. Setting aside the reflexive cheerleading for whatever the current Republican administration proposes, her piece collapses under the weight of basic facts she either ignores or cannot be bothered to verify.
Russell’s central thesis is that Trump should acquire Greenland if it is for sale because of its strategic value. She writes that “everything is for sale” which reveals either a fundamental misunderstanding of international law or a willingness to write pure fantasy for a readership that presumably wants to believe their preferred political outcomes are legally coherent. The facts do not support either her premise or her conclusions.
Greenland is not a colony Denmark can simply transfer. The 2009 Self-Government Act explicitly recognizes the Greenlandic people as a people with the right to self-determination under international law (Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2026). This is not a technicality. United Nations human rights experts expressed “grave concern” in January 2026 about statements suggesting “a territory can be taken, controlled or ‘owned’ by another State,” calling such rhetoric “a logic of colonial domination that the international community has long rejected” (Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2026). The UN Charter, to which the United States is a party, prohibits any threat or use of force to alter the political status of territory.
Russell mentions the 1946 Truman offer of $100 million in gold as precedent, but this historical reference actually undermines her case. Denmark declined then, just as Danish officials have consistently declined now. Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen stated that while Denmark is prepared to discuss security and economic cooperation, “sovereignty is off the table” (Euronews, 2026). Russell writes as if Denmark merely has not yet received the right offer. This ignores that the Greenlanders themselves have made their position clear. As MP Aaja Chemnitz stated, “Greenland never has been for sale and never will be for sale” (Copenhagen Broadcast Services, 2026). Five of six political parties in Greenland favor independence from Denmark (BBC News, 2025), and all Greenlandic political parties have stated they want to be Greenlanders, neither Danish nor American (Justice Info, 2026).
The strategic argument Russell advances actually weakens her case. The United States already operates Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland under a 1951 defense agreement with Denmark (House of Commons Library, 2026). The base provides missile warning, missile defense, and space surveillance capabilities (CSIS, 2026). Under this agreement, the United States can “construct, install, maintain and operate” military bases across the territory (The Guardian, 2026). If the concern is defense capabilities, those already exist through cooperation rather than annexation. Russell presents no evidence that ownership of the territory would provide capabilities the United States does not already possess.
Russell cites NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s comments about defending the Arctic but misrepresents their significance. Rutte’s statement that “President Trump is right” referred to the general proposition that NATO needs to strengthen Arctic presence, not to the specific proposal to acquire Danish territory. The distinction matters because Rutte was speaking within the existing framework of allied cooperation, not endorsing territorial expansion.
The polling Russell cites actually cuts against her position. She notes that 86 percent of voters oppose military action to take Greenland, and 51 percent of Americans oppose purchasing it. Her only response is that 60 percent of Republicans support purchase. This is not an argument that the policy is sound but rather an observation that partisan loyalty drives opinion. The majority view against the policy across the entire electorate is simply ignored.
Russell’s climate change argument demonstrates the incoherence of her position. She writes that Greenland is “a hub for climate change research” and suggests Trump’s administration might preserve this research. This ignores that Trump’s administration has systematically dismissed climate science and rolled back environmental protections. The suggestion that an administration hostile to climate science would somehow safeguard Arctic research lacks evidentiary support. The inclusion of this argument seems designed only to preemptively neutralize criticism from environmentally minded readers.
Russell’s argument that Trump “clarified” he would not use military force does not withstand scrutiny. His full statement at Davos was that “we probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force, where we would be frankly unstoppable, but I won’t do that” (USA TODAY, 2026). This is not a renunciation of force but rather an assertion that force remains available and the restraint is voluntary. It is the rhetorical equivalent of someone holding a gun to your head and explaining they could pull the trigger but choose not to. The threat itself is the offense.
Russell admits Trump confused Greenland with Iceland during his speech, calling this a minor matter because she did not vote for him for his oratory skills. This is a revealing admission. The capacity to distinguish between the territory the president claims to want to acquire and a completely different country is not oratorical polish. It is basic competence in the conduct of foreign policy. If Russell cannot demand this basic competency from the president, what standard is she actually applying to any aspect of his performance?
Throughout her column, Russell substitutes assertion for analysis. She claims the acquisition “would be a strategic move” but provides no strategic reasoning that ownership provides capabilities cooperation does not already supply. She asserts that controlling Greenland “could further enhance U.S. national security” without explaining what capability is missing under current arrangements. She writes that “everything is for sale” while ignoring that international law explicitly recognizes peoples, not governments of colonial powers, as the holders of sovereignty over territory.
The consistent pattern is that Russell begins with the conclusion she wishes to reach and works backward to construct supporting arguments that she neither tests against available evidence nor develops with any rigor. Opinion writing is allowed to advocate for positions, but it is not allowed to pretend that assertion equals argument.
Russell’s closing suggestion that Trump “could trim his speech, clarify his main points and remember which country he’s trying to buy” is the closest she comes to acknowledging the problems with his approach. But if these are the only criticisms she will lodge, she has not written a serious analysis of a serious policy proposal. She has written an endorsement dressed up as critical commentary.
The fundamental problem with Russell’s argument is that it accepts the premise that the United States can simply acquire another country’s territory if the strategic benefits seem compelling to American decision-makers. This premise is not merely wrong as a matter of international law. It is dangerous to the international order that has provided unprecedented peace among major powers for nearly eight decades. If a larger neighbor can simply purchase a smaller country because it wants the land, the entire structure of international relations collapses into a might-makes-right framework that will inevitably produce conflict.
Russell should ask herself why, if acquisition is so clearly advantageous, the United States has not attempted it successfully in nearly eighty years despite having far more favorable international conditions during the Cold War. The answer is that international law exists for reasons, and those reasons are not merely inconvenient obstacles to be dismissed by partisan writers.
If you want to see what happens when we do social promotion in middle school read her nonsense here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/01/21/trump-greenland-deal-davos-speech/88284259007/
Works Cited
BBC News. (2025, March 11). Greenland goes to polls in vote dominated by Trump and independence. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr4236e2wz2o
Copenhagen Broadcast Services. (2026, January 12). Why most Greenlanders favor a future without Trump. https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/12/greenland-independence-denmark-trump-military-operation.html
CSIS. (2026, January 8). Greenland, rare earths, and Arctic security. https://www.csis.org/analysis/greenland-rare-earths-and-arctic-security
Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2026). Greenland. https://english.stm.dk/the-prime-ministers-office/the-unity-of-the-realm/greenland/
Euronews. (2026, January 20). We can negotiate anything but our sovereignty, says Denmark. https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2026/01/20/trump-doubles-down-on-greenland-annexation-as-europe-struggles-to-coordinate-a-response
House of Commons Library. (2026, January 22). President Trump and Greenland: Frequently asked questions (Research Briefing No. CBP-10472). https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10472/
Justice Info. (2026, January 22). Greenland between decolonization, the US, and international responses. https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/154552-greenland-between-decolonization-the-us-and-international-responses.html
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. (2026, January 14). Greenland: UN experts urge United States to respect international law and right to self-determination. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/01/greenland-un-experts-urge-united-states-respect-international-law-and-right
The Guardian. (2026, January 7). What are Trump’s real options for gaining control of Greenland? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/07/what-are-trumps-real-options-for-gaining-control-of-greenland
USA TODAY. (2026, January 21). Trump’s Davos speech on Greenland made sense to me. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnist/2026/01/21/trump-greenland-deal-davos-speech/88284259007/