This bill authorizes the President to seek to enter into negotiations with the Kingdom of Denmark to secure the acquisition of Greenland by the United States. It establishes a statutory mechanism for transmitting any resulting agreement to Congress and for a statutory congressional review before the agreement takes effect.
The proposal matters because it would create a legislative pathway — rather than leaving the steps entirely to existing treaty practice or ordinary diplomacy — for one nation to acquire a modern territory with a resident population, extensive autonomous institutions, and strategic importance in the Arctic. The bill raises immediate legal, governance, and implementation questions that agencies, defense planners, and foreign counterparts would need to resolve long before any transfer of sovereignty could occur.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill authorizes the President to seek negotiations with Denmark over the acquisition of Greenland, requires the President to transmit any agreement and annexes to specified congressional committees shortly after concluding it, and establishes a short congressional review window during which Congress can pass a joint resolution of disapproval.
Who It Affects
The executive branch (State, Defense, Justice), the two congressional foreign affairs committees, the Government of Denmark and Greenlandic authorities, U.S. taxpayers, and commercial actors with Arctic interests such as mining, shipping, and energy companies.
Why It Matters
It creates a formal, statutory path that could fast-track acceptance of a territorial-transfer agreement into U.S. law, touching questions of constitutional procedure, international consent, indigenous self-determination, fiscal cost, and Arctic strategy.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill gives the President explicit statutory authority to begin negotiations with the Kingdom of Denmark to acquire Greenland. That authorization is time-stamped in the text: it directs that the authority begins at 12:01 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time on January 20, 2025. The President would be free to negotiate terms with Denmark once the authority is effective, but the bill does not prescribe any particular deal structure, price, or post-transfer governance arrangements.
If the United States and Denmark reach an agreement, the bill requires the President to transmit the agreement and all annexes to Congress — specifically to the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee — within five calendar days of reaching the agreement. Upon transmission, the bill starts a 60-calendar-day congressional review window during which Congress may enact a joint resolution of disapproval to block the agreement.Critically, the text says that if Congress does not enact a joint resolution of disapproval within that review period, the agreement ‘‘shall be in effect and take the full force of law.’’ The bill does not spell out implementing details that would be necessary for real-world transfer: it contains no funding authorization for purchase or integration, no detailed plan for citizenship or domestic governance of Greenland after transfer, and no procedural protections for Greenlandic consent or consultation.Because the bill contemplates conversion of an international agreement into law absent an affirmative congressional veto, it raises immediate legal and practical questions.
The Constitution’s Treaty Clause traditionally gives the Senate a role in foreign agreements; this law would rely on a different statutory pathway to make an agreement self-executing. The bill also does not address Danish domestic law or Greenland’s extensive autonomous institutions under the Kingdom of Denmark, nor does it require any local referendum or consultation with Greenland’s population.
Those gaps would be central to any actual negotiation and implementation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The authority to seek negotiations begins at 12:01 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on January 20, 2025.
The bill authorizes the President to seek to enter into negotiations with the Kingdom of Denmark to secure the acquisition of Greenland by the United States.
If the United States and Denmark reach an agreement, the President must transmit the agreement and all annexes to the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee within 5 calendar days of concluding the agreement.
Congress has a 60-calendar-day review period after transmission during which it can enact a joint resolution of disapproval to block the agreement.
If Congress does not enact a joint resolution of disapproval within the 60-day review window, the bill provides that the agreement takes effect and has the full force of law.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Designates the act as the 'Make Greenland Great Again Act.' This is purely nominative and has no legal effect on the mechanics of negotiation or transfer, but it frames the statutory text and is the public label any implementing actions will carry.
Authorization to seek negotiations
Grants the President authority to 'seek to enter into negotiations' with the Kingdom of Denmark to acquire Greenland, and fixes a concrete start time for that authority. The text does not constrain negotiation objectives, price, conditions, or the need for concurrent consultation with Greenlandic authorities, leaving the substance of talks to executive discretion.
Transmission requirement
Requires the President to transmit a concluded agreement and all related materials and annexes to the two named congressional committees within five calendar days of reaching the agreement. That short transmission deadline ensures prompt congressional involvement and begins the statutory review clock, but it also limits time for pre-transmission briefing and classified consultations with a broader set of oversight committees.
Congressional review and effect
Establishes a 60-calendar-day period for Congress to review the agreement. If Congress does not enact a joint resolution of disapproval within that period, the agreement 'shall be in effect and take the full force of law.' The provision effectively sets a default-approval mechanism rather than requiring an affirmative congressional approval vote; it does not specify how a joint resolution of disapproval would move through expedited procedures, what vote threshold applies, or whether the President could veto a disapproval resolution.
Definition of appropriate committees
Defines 'appropriate congressional committees' narrowly as the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The bill therefore channels initial oversight and review through those two committees and omits explicit referral to appropriations, armed services, homeland security, or Native affairs committees — a structuring choice that affects which congressional offices can access materials or assert jurisdictional claims over implementation.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Foreign Affairs across all five countries.
Explore Foreign Affairs in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- The Executive Branch — The President and the State Department gain explicit statutory authority to negotiate a major territorial transfer, giving the administration a formal mandate to pursue discussions rather than relying solely on ordinary diplomacy.
- U.S. defense and strategic planners — Securing Greenland under U.S. control would provide the Department of Defense and strategic planners with direct influence over Arctic basing, early-warning installations, and shipping routes.
- Commercial actors with Arctic interests — Mining, energy, and shipping companies that have been preparing for expanded Arctic access would likely see potential gains from U.S. jurisdiction over Greenland’s resources and routes.
- Proponents of U.S. territorial expansion — Political constituencies and advocacy groups that favor expanding U.S. territory gain a clear pathway to attempt a transfer under U.S. law.
Who Bears the Cost
- The Kingdom of Denmark — Entering negotiations and potentially ceding territory would have diplomatic and domestic political costs for Denmark and require resolution of complex domestic legal questions.
- Greenlandic residents and Indigenous communities — The bill contains no requirement for Greenlandic consent or a referendum; Greenland’s population would bear consequences for self-determination, local institutions, and rights regimes if a transfer proceeded without robust protections.
- U.S. taxpayers and federal agencies — Any purchase, infrastructure, governance, or defense costs necessary to integrate and administer Greenland would fall primarily on U.S. budgets and implementing agencies, though the bill authorizes negotiations rather than funding.
- Congressional committees and staff — The rapid transmission and short review windows would impose a heavy, time-sensitive workload on the two named committees and may force expedited oversight without full intercommittee consultation.
- State and local U.S. authorities — If Greenland became U.S. territory, state/local legal systems could face complex jurisdictional and administrative burdens during transition, including questions about whether Greenland would become a state or an organized territory.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between rapid, executive-led action to secure a strategic Arctic asset and the legal, political, and ethical obligations that accompany transferring territory with a resident, self-governing population: giving the President a fast statutory pathway addresses strategic urgency but risks sidelining established treaty procedures, thorough congressional deliberation, and meaningful Greenlandic consent.
The bill authorizes negotiations but leaves nearly all of the consequential details unspecified. It does not define what an 'acquisition' would mean legally (sale, cession, transfer of sovereignty, protectorate, etc.), it sets no financial framework or appropriation mechanism, and it does not describe how Greenlandic citizenship, property, environmental, or resource rights would be preserved or transitioned.
Those omissions mean that any real negotiation would require parallel, detailed implementing legislation or executive orders to address domestic law, budgets, and governance.
The statutory review design also raises separation-of-powers and procedural issues. The text provides that an agreement becomes law unless Congress enacts a joint resolution of disapproval, but it does not specify whether that resolution would be subject to presidential veto or what timetable/fast-track procedures would apply.
The bill also does not engage the Senate’s Advice and Consent role under the Treaty Clause; whether an acquisition agreement would be a treaty requiring two-thirds Senate ratification or could be implemented by statute is an unresolved constitutional and practical question. The bill is likewise silent on international and Danish-constitutional hurdles: Greenland has extensive home-rule arrangements within the Kingdom of Denmark, and Denmark would need to comply with its own domestic procedures and with any requirement to secure Greenlandic consent under international law on self-determination.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.