Donald Trump’s America First politics have disturbed the global world order and posed a challenge to alliances. Particularly vocalized claims to sovereign territory have changed the way in which alliances understand and communicate with each other. In 2016 and again in 2025, Trump proposed to buy Greenland from the Kingdom of Denmark, which started a chain of diplomatic tensions and opened discussions and speculations on the question of sovereignty within the liberal world order. Since communication and rhetorics are both a vital diplomatic part of alliances and trust and a base to possible conflict resolution, his claims and the legal angle of international law will be assessed. This chapter explores on the base of Greenland Donald Trump’s political communication and the rhetorics used to validate a claim of sovereignty for Greenlandic territory. It explores how his foreign political philosophy is transmitted through rhetorical tools to the global world and the justification of the arctic region as a strategic extended arm of the U.S. to conquer spheres of influences of the PRC and Russia. Economic tools are a particular strategy to solidify influence on Greenland as it is dependent on external investments, which makes Greenland in Trump rhetorics an economic entity and not a sovereign one. This struggle for sovereignty and its recognition is evaluated through an analysis of a possibility of legal brinkmanship and the absence-presence of international law in Trumps rhetorics. The main findings are that the political communication towards Greenland in the Trump era are marked by Trump himself functioning as a performer through the usage of social and media and by being a linguistically reliable populist. Greenland is presented as an economic entity, that creates a logic of belonging, expressed through economic linguistics that jeopardize a norm and value eroding pattern towards international law. The allies concerned however use international law through a practice of unconventional asymmetric lawfare as a backbone of their argument. If a democratic state such as the U.S. endangers to disregards international law and uses similar patterns to non-democratic powers, based on proximity, historical belonging and a simple strategic need, the gap between respecting and acting out the rules of such tightens – and one starting point is the communication used.