Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images
In recent months, U.S. President Donald Trump has reignited efforts to acquire Greenland–much to the dismay of the island’s inhabitants. His interest in purchasing the Danish territory goes back to 2019, although this proposal was widely dismissed at the time as a joke. This time around, however, the president and high-level officials around him have made one thing clear: he’s deathly serious. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has confirmed what many Europeans have been fearing: that the new president’s interests are “not a joke.”
While Trump’s interest in buying the Danish island has faced mockery, an American focus on the Arctic region is nothing new. In fact, it goes back to the nineteenth-century. In 1867, President Andrew Jackson purchased Alaska from the Russians. The signing of the Alaska Treaty made the U.S. an Arctic state, gave them access to the northern Pacific Rim, and removed Russian presence from North America.
U.S. ambitions in the Arctic did not end there. In 1910, the U.S. ambassador to Denmark, Maurice Egan, proposed a three-way land swap: the U.S. would cede Mindanao–an island in the Philippines–in exchange for Greenland and the Danish West Indies; Denmark would, in turn, further exchange land with Germany. Furthermore, in 1946, officials offered to buy the island for $100 million in gold. These rejections did not deter American determination, however, and Cold War tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union only heightened military aspirations in the following years. Because of its location between the period’s superpowers, it had a unique geostrategic importance for the U.S. This recognition resulted in the 1951 Greenland Defence Agreement, allowing the U.S. to establish military bases on the island. The importance of the agreement lies in the fact that it is an explicit legal precedent that allows the U.S. to have influence within Denmark’s territory. This has enabled the creation of the Pituffik Space Base, a key mechanism in receiving early missile warnings.
To understand why this whole extravaganza is critical, it is insightful to look at the international balance of power. As geopolitical tensions rise between the global superpowers–the U.S., Russia, and China–the Arctic territory becomes increasingly paramount. Similar to Cold War interests, obtaining reach over Greenland is of large military benefit. Trump said to reporters from the White House, “Greenland is necessary not for us, it’s necessary for international security,” adding “you have Russian boats all over the place, you have China’s boats all over the place — warships — and they [Denmark] can’t maintain it.” Strategically, the administration’s standpoint is clear: it allows the U.S. to counterbalance against its rivals.
In addition to military importance, the climate crisis has given the territory a greater economic security incentive for the U.S. A 2025 report found that the Greenland ice sheet is melting faster than ever before. As the ice caps recede, new mineral deposits are exposed, providing access to Greenland’s rare earth elements (i.e., lithium, niobium, hafnium and zirconium). The urgency stems from the pressure to keep up with China and counter the threat posed by its dominance over the supply chain. Another economic incentive created by the melting ice caps is the creation of new shipping lanes in the Arctic. According to the Arctic Council, shipping increased 37 percent from 2013 to 2023. By revealing new routes, cargo ships have to travel shorter distances between population centers.
Trump’s calls haven’t been ignored by Denmark, its neighbors, or the Greenlanders whose future is at stake. The Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has made it clear that the territory is “not for sale” and that “Seen through the eyes of the Danish government, Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders.” This sentiment rejecting the Trump proposal is reflected in the constituency. According to new polling, 85% of Greenlanders are against joining the U.S. Many are even offended at the proposition. Aleqa Hammond, Greenland's first female Prime Minister said, "He's treating us like a good he can purchase.”
But words are not enough to fend off the Trump administration and their expansionist ambitions. It was announced in late January that Denmark will divert 14.6 billion Danish crowns ($2.05bn USD) into security. Centered around the Arctic waters, the country will obtain three new ships, more long-range drones, and greater satellite capacity. In support, NATO has also discussed the prospect of sending troops to defend the state. Because Denmark is allied with NATO, Greenland is protected under Article V in the original North Atlantic Treaty–the Mutual Defense Clause. If the U.S.invades Greenland, they invade NATO, and all member states will come to Denmark’s defense. Some states, such as France, have even weighed the possibility of sending troops in response to Trump’s threats.
Analysis (by Carmine Miklovis)
Seizing Greenland would be a miscalculation by the Trump administration. While the U.S. would decisively win any military or economic conflict against Denmark, the losses wouldn’t be on the battlefield; instead, the U.S. would be putting a stake through the heart of one of its most important alliances: NATO.
A U.S. invasion of Greenland would be an unprecedented strategic blunder. Triggering Article V would pit the U.S. against nearly every single one of its closest allies. While Trump’s foreign policy is erratic, there’s some semblance of coherence that suggests that he wouldn’t go this far. Instead, it’s likely that Trump will attempt to pressure the Danish government through economic coercion. While Trump likely won’t outright sanction Denmark, he’ll use every tool in his arsenal to squeeze a favorable agreement out of them. Whether this will work as intended, however, remains to be seen. It’s unlikely that the president will impose steep tariffs on the entire alliance, given EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s promise to reciprocate any tariffs clashes with Trump’s domestic promise of lowering food prices. As such, the rest of the EU–who largely supports Denmark’s claim to Greenland–may be able to circumvent higher tariffs on the Danes.
This entire charade risks unnecessarily souring transatlantic relations at a time when the alliance is vital to U.S. interests. The more forceful Trump is in his rhetoric and actions, the more he will strain relations with its European allies. This move, along with the imposition of tariffs on the EU and the de-emphasis of NATO by Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in recent weeks, marks the Trump administration’s broader disregard for the alliance as a whole. While once pivotal to global security, the U.S. has made it clear that its priorities lie elsewhere–much to the dismay of its European allies.
Greenland can still serve the United States’ security goals without the U.S. adopting the island as a territory. Instead, if Trump wants to utilize the island for its strategic importance, he can do so by expanding the use of the island in NATO operations. He then could use the island to better position the U.S. in the Arctic without it serving as a point of contention with the nation’s most valuable alliance. Pivoting the focus could turn the issue from a source of enmity in the transatlantic alliance to a unifying force.
Perhaps negotiating favorable conditions for positioning U.S. troops on Greenland has been Trump’s goal all along, and this is just his roundabout way of achieving it. This unconventional path could allow him to tout a win to his base, telling them that he negotiated better conditions—albeit on something that would otherwise be easy to achieve. Perhaps Trump is testing the waters, seeing what concessions he can extract out of the EU. Maybe the U.S. is abandoning the alliance to chart its own course. Or maybe there is no grand strategy at all, and he’s just stirring trouble or seeking to achieve a tangible legacy driven by motives of self-interested glory. Regardless, if the U.S. obtains Greenland, Trump will be sure to claim the deal as a domestic political win. However, it would be a tremendous loss internationally and should be a serious consideration as he crafts his foreign policy vis-à-vis Europe. Thus, while this might garner domestic support, he could lose big in the international arena, and add pressure to the already splintering relationship between the United States and their European allies.