(Well, to be most accurate,, Denmark ceded all the US Virgin Islands, not just Epstein Island.)
In another deranged message yesterday, Jabba the Trump repeated a most demented question, this time to the Norwegian Prime Minister. [See: Trump’s bizarre letter to Norway’s prime minister in full as President links Greenland threat to Nobel Prize snub, The Independent, January 19, 2026.]
...Why do they [Denmark] have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago...”
In fact, the 1917 Treaty of the Danish West Indies, selling the Danish West Indies (now the U.S. Virgin Islands) to the U.S. included a crucial U.S. declaration agreeing not to object to Denmark extending its political and economic interests to all of Greenland, effectively solidifying Danish sovereignty over the entire island in exchange for the sale. This declaration formalized the U.S. acknowledgment of Denmark's claim to northern and eastern Greenland, areas previously less explored, making it a key diplomatic support for Danish rule.
The Trade: The U.S. paid Denmark $25 million in gold for the Danish West Indies.
The Greenland Clause: In return, the U.S. Secretary of State issued a statement (part of the treaty) recognizing Denmark's full sovereignty over Greenland.
Historical Context: While Denmark had a long presence on Greenland's west coast, the declaration secured its claim over the entire island, overcoming potential U.S. interest in the north (based on exploration).
Significance: This declaration served as a vital international acknowledgment of Denmark's Greenlandic claims, paving the way for global recognition of Danish rule.
In essence, the treaty was a swap: valuable Caribbean islands for confirmed control over the vast Arctic territory of Greenland.
The "Greenland clause" was central to the 1916 Treaty of the Danish West Indies: the U.S. agreed to recognize Denmark's full sovereignty over Greenland in exchange for purchasing the Danish West Indies (now U.S. Virgin Islands). This commitment, formalized in the Robert Lansing Declaration, was a key condition for the sale, linking the Caribbean transfer to U.S. non-interference in Danish Arctic claims. The U.S. acquired the Virgin Islands, and Denmark solidified its control over Greenland, a sovereignty later recognized by a 1933 World Court ruling.
The US Virgin Islands (nee Danish West Indies) include Little Saint James, aka Epstein Island.
The breach of the treaty has consequences. After an early (March 28, 2025) indication of US designs on Greenland by Trump and JD Vance, the St Thomas Source published a legal analysis suggesting a breach of the Treaty of the Danish West Indies amounted to an opportunity for the US Virgin Islands to declare independence.
U.S. Violation of the 1916 Lansing Declaration
March 30, 2025
Supplemental Legal Memorandum: U.S. Violation of the 1916 Lansing Declaration
...
IV. Legal Analysis: A Material Breach of the Lansing Declaration
The public and official nature of these statements constitutes a material breach of the Lansing Declaration. The United States, through its highest executive officials, has:
1. Publicly objected to Denmark’s political leadership in Greenland;
2. Declared intent to pursue unilateral acquisition of Greenland;
3. Undermined the legal and diplomatic commitments made in 1916 in exchange for Denmark’s transfer of the Virgin Islands.
This breach affects not only U.S.–Danish relations but the legal foundation of U.S. sovereignty in the Virgin Islands. As the Lansing Declaration and the 1916 Treaty formed a single diplomatic structure, repudiation of one element destabilizes the integrity of the whole.
V. Implications for Third-Party Standing and Treaty Review
The public breach reinforces the necessity of immediate procedural recognition of the people of the Virgin Islands before the PCA. It confirms:
• That the treaty continues to produce legal consequences today, despite excluding Virgin Islanders from the original agreement;
• That the United States no longer honors the original framework in its entirety;
• That Virgin Islanders are entitled to challenge the continued legal validity of their transfer and present political status under the doctrine of self-determination and post-colonial redress.
VI. Conclusion
This memorandum supplements the legal petition currently before the PCA and is submitted as part of the evidentiary record. The violation of the Lansing Declaration is not hypothetical—it has occurred. The time for recognition, review, and remedy is now.
[emphasis added]
##
