Fact-Checking Ben Shapiro on Trump’s Greenland Policy
Facts Don’t Care About Your Narratives, Ben
Yesterday, American conservative pundit Ben Shapiro insisted on his show that America’s claims to Greenland are stronger than Denmark’s, thereby justifying Trump’s annexationist policy. “[T]he United Sates, believe or not, does have a pretty good historic claim to Greenland,” he boldly asserted, later adding that it is “a very, very solid case.”1
Under careful scrutiny, however, his arguments crumble in the face of historical facts, logic, and basic ethics. Whether for the sake of riding the Trump bandwagon, or for the sake of his own narrative, Shapiro has allowed facts and logic to take the backseat on this issue.
As a conservative and an admirer of Shapiro, I am terribly disappointed to see this coming from the man who famously prides himself on the consistent application of facts and logic. With all due respect, I find this ironic and hypocritical.
Now, before going over the responses to each of Shapiro’s claims, I encourage readers to watch his video for clarity. (The segment on Greenland begins at 4:44 and ends at 7:12.)1
Historical Exploration by Americans
Shapiro’s Claim: “[B]ack in 1775, … Denmark and Norway declared Greenland a colony. Greenland was then formally transferred from Norway to Denmark by a treaty of 1814. Denmark started to trying to colonize [sic] the island in the 1880s. But … a huge chunk, before the 1880s, was actually discovered by … Americans. It was American Charles Francis Hall who was the first to see Northwest Greenland during the Polaris Expedition, which was 1871 to 1873. And another explorer named Robert Peary actually claimed much of the North.”
The Facts: Exploration does not equate to governance or ownership. While Americans participated in Arctic exploration, they played no role in governing, settling, or building Greenland. The Danes, in collaboration with the indigenous Inuit population, shaped Greenland’s modern identity.
If Shapiro’s argument held water, it would imply that Norway should reclaim Newfoundland because the Vikings explored it first. By the same logic, the Norse, not Americans, have the strongest exploratory claim to Greenland.
The Treaty of the Danish West Indies
Shapiro’s Claim: “The only reason that [sic] Denmark has any claim whatsoever to Greenland … is because, when the United States was interested in purchasing the Danish West Indies during World War One, Denmark required the country to recognize its claim over the whole island of Greenland…”
The Facts: This assertion ignores over a century of historical context. To Shapiro credit, he did acknowledge that Greenland was already united with Denmark through the Treaty of Kiel in 1814 and that it had been part of the Denmark-Norway union long before that. And yet, he failed to realize that these historical facts contradict his assertion that the Treaty of the Danish West Indies2 was the “only reason” for Denmark to make any claims on Greenland. It disappoints me to see Shapiro downplay historical facts seemingly out of convenience.
Denmark’s true claims are rooted not only in treaty, but also in linguistic, cultural, and political ties. Can America boast of such ties with the island?
The Monroe Doctrine Argument
Shapiro’s Claim: “Peary… opposed the US giving up the claim because he said, ‘Hey, the Monroe Doctrine says no European interference in the Western Hemisphere.’ Instead, he suggested, correctly, that we should have purchase the island outright.”
The Facts: Shapiro elevates the opinion of a single explorer into a sweeping geopolitical argument. However, an explorer’s perspective on territorial ownership carries no weight without consideration of history, cultural and linguistic ties, governance, and the rights of Greenland’s people.
But leaving aside the weight of Peary’s input on the matter, the Monroe Doctrine is irrelevant. It was primarily aimed at preventing European colonization of independent nations in the Americas, not established European territories like Greenland.
America’s Wartime Investments in Greenland
Shapiro’s Claim: “[B]y the early 1940s, Denmark had been conquered by … the Nazis. … [O]nce that happened, the United States … had to defend Greenland as its own principality. … In 1951, Greenland and the United Sates signed a treaty that gave the United States exclusive jurisdiction over defense areas within Greenland.”
The Facts: While America’s military contributions to Greenland were very significant, they were part of a broader Allied war effort. It is not a claim to sovereignty. Protecting Greenland during the Second World War and later in the Cold War does not translate into ownership.
This is akin to arguing that financial aid or military support entitles a nation to claim foreign territory. It contradicts international law and basic ethics, things that one would expect America, a beacon of liberty, to regard as sacred.
Such reasoning would give the United States claims over, say, Germany, South Korea, and Japan. These sovereign states, therefore, would be America’s “principalities” as well. Would Shapiro be bold enough to make such a claim? Would he take this line of thinking to its logical conclusion?
The Threat of Russian and Chinese Influence
Shapiro’s Claim: “[A]s ice melts in the Arctic Circle, there are brand new North Atlantic shipping lanes that have drawn interest from Russia and China. And Denmark ain’t doin’ a thing about it. So either Russia and China are gonna have an impact there or we [the United States] are going to have an impact up there.”
The Facts: Greenland is a self-governing territory under Denmark, which is a NATO member. Any aggressive move by Russia or China would provoke a united response from NATO, vastly diminishing the likelihood of such a scenario.
As for Denmark’s supposed unwillingness or inability to assert its territorial claims, let us, for the sake of argument, accept this as the case. It still does not negate the fact that sovereignty is not determined by military might. Shapiro’s argument implies that weaker nations are inherently unfit to govern their own territories—a dangerous and outdated perspective.
For America to remain a beacon of liberty, it must respect the sovereignty of others, especially its allies.
Conclusion
Shapiro’s arguments in favor of America’s claim to Greenland are riddled with historical inaccuracies, logical inconsistencies, and ethical oversights. Greenland’s ties to Denmark are far stronger than any claim America could muster. Sovereignty is not rooted in exploration or military investments.
Ben, if you truly values facts and logic, you should revisit the history and geopolitics of Greenland. Facts don’t care about your narratives.
“Should Trump BUY Greenland?”
The official document of the US waiving its right of Greenland in exchange for the Danish West Indies: https://arkivalieronline.rigsarkivet.dk/da/billedviser?epid=20072706#517391,54118464