Trump Renews Push to Take Control of Greenland, Raising Alarm Among Allies and Arctic Experts

BY EMMANUEL OGBONNA

President Donald Trump has again set his sights on Greenland, declaring that the United States must take control of the vast, mineral-rich Arctic island that is a semiautonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, a longtime U.S. ally and fellow NATO member. His renewed rhetoric has intensified diplomatic unease in Europe and revived debate over America’s strategic ambitions in the Arctic.

Trump has repeatedly argued that Greenland’s location and resources make it essential to U.S. national security. Speaking Friday, he said the United States would act on Greenland “whether they like it or not,” adding that if the matter could not be resolved “the easy way,” it would be done “the hard way,” without specifying what that might involve. In a recent interview with The New York Times, Trump said outright ownership of Greenland would give the United States advantages that could not be achieved through agreements alone.

Those remarks followed meetings in Washington on Thursday involving officials from Denmark, Greenland and the United States. The discussions are set to continue next week as the White House weighs a range of options, including diplomatic, economic and, according to officials familiar with the talks, even military scenarios for asserting control over the island.

The prospect of an American takeover has drawn sharp warnings from Denmark and firm opposition from Greenlanders themselves. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has said that any attempt by the United States to seize Greenland would effectively spell the end of NATO, an alliance built on the principle of collective defense among sovereign nations. Greenlandic leaders, meanwhile, have consistently said they do not want to become part of the United States.

Greenland, the world’s largest island, has a population of roughly 57,000 and no independent military. Defense is handled by Denmark, whose armed forces are modest compared with those of the United States. Analysts say that if Washington were to attempt to take Greenland by force, it would trigger an unprecedented crisis within NATO, potentially challenging the alliance’s very survival.

Imran Bayoumi, an associate director at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, said the renewed American focus on Greenland reflects years of underinvestment by successive U.S. administrations in Arctic strategy. As climate change opens new shipping routes and access to resources, the Arctic has grown in strategic importance, but Washington has yet to articulate a coherent long-term vision for the region.

Even so, Bayoumi and other experts doubt that Trump would actually resort to military action. Such a move would face fierce resistance from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers and would severely damage U.S. relationships with allies around the world. “It would fundamentally alter America’s position in the international system,” Bayoumi said.

Trump has justified his interest in Greenland by pointing to perceived threats from Russia and China in the Arctic. However, regional experts dispute the immediacy of those claims. Lin Mortensgaard, an Arctic security specialist at the Danish Institute for International Studies, said there is no evidence of Russian surface warships operating near Greenland, though submarines are known to patrol across the broader Arctic. China, she said, has sent research vessels into the central Arctic Ocean, but joint Chinese-Russian military activity has taken place closer to Alaska, not near Greenland.

Under a 1951 defense agreement, the United States already enjoys broad access to Greenland for military purposes. Washington operates the Pituffik Space Base in the island’s northwest, a critical installation for missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance for both the U.S. and NATO. Existing agreements allow the United States to deploy additional forces to Greenland if it chooses, and Danish and Greenlandic authorities have indicated they would be open to discussions about expanding the American military presence.

Given that access, experts question the logic of risking a rupture with NATO. “Blowing up the alliance for something the U.S. already effectively has doesn’t make sense,” said Ulrik Pram Gad, a specialist on Greenland at the Danish Institute for International Studies.

Diplomatic and economic approaches remain on the table. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a small group of U.S. lawmakers this week that the administration’s long-term goal is to purchase Greenland rather than seize it by force. Danish and Greenlandic officials have repeatedly responded that the island is not for sale, and it remains unclear who would even have the authority to sell it or what price might be demanded.

Another possibility would be to deepen bilateral arrangements that expand U.S. influence without formal ownership. Gad noted that Washington could seek a role similar to the one it holds in several Pacific island nations through Compacts of Free Association. Under those agreements, the United States assumes responsibility for defense and gains broad security authority in exchange for economic assistance. Whether such a framework would offer meaningful advantages over current arrangements in Greenland is uncertain.

Attempts to sway Greenlanders themselves are also likely to fall flat. Greenlandic politician Aaja Chemnitz has said residents want greater autonomy and, for some, eventual independence, but not absorption into the United States. Gad said influence campaigns would probably fail in Greenland’s close-knit society, where language and culture create strong barriers to outside persuasion.

Danish officials have already raised concerns about foreign interference. Last year, Denmark’s foreign minister summoned a senior U.S. diplomat to protest what he described as efforts by “foreign actors” to influence Greenland’s future, after media reports that individuals linked to Trump had engaged in covert outreach on the island.

Even if the United States somehow gained control of Greenland, analysts say the financial and political costs would be steep. Greenlanders are Danish citizens and benefit from Denmark’s extensive welfare system, including universal health care and education. Replicating those benefits would require Washington to build a level of social support that Trump has often opposed domestically.

Since the end of World War II, the U.S. military footprint in Greenland has shrunk dramatically, from thousands of troops spread across multiple bases to about 200 personnel stationed at Pituffik. Vice President J.D. Vance said this week that Denmark has failed to meet its missile defense responsibilities on the island, a claim Mortensgaard dismissed as misplaced, noting that the base primarily serves U.S. and NATO early-warning needs.

For Denmark, the most realistic outcome may be an updated defense agreement that reaffirms and possibly expands U.S. military access, ideally endorsed directly by Trump. Whether that would satisfy the president is unclear. Gad suggested Greenland remains a politically useful issue for Trump, one he can invoke whenever he wants to dominate headlines or divert attention from domestic challenges.

“When he says the word ‘Greenland,’ everything starts all over again,” Gad said, adding that the dispute shows little sign of being resolved anytime soon.