An introduction to Greenland

Greenland is the world’s largest island, yet it is not an independent country; rather it is an autonomous territory in the Kingdom of Denmark. Originally associated with Norway, following the union between Norway and Denmark in the 18th century, Greenland was fully integrated into the Danish state in 1953 after the signing of the Constitution of Denmark. As such, Greenlanders enjoy home rule, with various aspects of government, economic policy, and social systems controlled by the local Greenlandic government; while the Danish government takes care of issues such as foreign affairs and citizenship.

​

The history between Greenland and the U.S.

The US has historically always been interested in Greenland, having made attempts to purchase the island from the 19th century onwards. A US Navy officer even traversed Greenland in the early 20th century, making contact with the Inuit, the indigenous people of Greenland. The US tried on multiple occasions to buy Greenland in the early 1940s-1950s, although such plans never came to fruition as Greenland became protected under NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) as a part of Danish territory in 1951. 

 

Although the US wasn’t able to purchase Greenland, they did station military bases in Greenland, which still remain today. This started in WW2, when Nazi Germany occupied Greenland. As the Allied Powers (the USA, Britain, France etc.) feared that the Nazis would utilise Greenland’s position between the US and Europe to disrupt Allied supply routes, the US helped to defend Greenland from Nazi exploitation and assumed responsibility for their defense. Yet, after the war ended, US forces were unwilling to exit Greenland, and even formally offered to purchase Greenland. 

 

Despite Danish officials initially trying to convince them to leave, in the wake of the Cold War between the US and the USSR, the Danish government eventually decided that it would be strategically beneficial to align themselves with the US against the USSR. Thus, they signed the 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement with the US, allowing them to expand their military presence in Greenland. The US would later build the Pittufik Air Base in northern Greenland, America’s only active military base on the island. The US government has floated the idea of purchasing Greenland for decades since then, but as the Cold War ended in 1991, so did American interests in Greenland for the time being. 

​

Greenland’s strategic importance 

Naturally, one might wonder: why is the US so insistent on buying Greenland? Well, this is because of Greenland’s strategic importance in the defense of the US mainland, and also because of Greenland’s (and by extension, the Arctic’s) natural resources. 

 

As mentioned previously, Greenland is located between Europe and the Americas, and also near the Arctic, on the other side of which lies US adversaries such as Russia and China. This makes Greenland hugely strategic to the US and its military, as its well-placed geographic location allows for the potential construction of ballistic missile early-warning systems in case of missile attacks from Russia or Europe (as the shortest route from Europe to the US runs through the Arctic); or for monitoring systems in the Arctic, to surveil the region for Russian and Chinese activity. The increased capacity that Greenland provides for US security and defense has proved to be a key reason for American interests on the island, demonstrated by the fact that Trump has cited this as the driving force behind his plans to annex Greenland during his second administration.

 

Apart from its strategic geography, Greenland (and the Arctic’s) abundant natural resources have aroused various countries’ interests since the early 2010s. As Greenland contains rare earth minerals, uranium, and is also rumoured to hold significant oil and gas reserves, many countries have looked towards expanding their influence in the region, though not much action has been taken by the US in this regard. Furthermore, despite Greenland holding a large amount of natural resources, the harsh Arctic climate has posed a consistent challenge to resource extraction. Thus, the economy of Greenland is heavily dependent on its fishing economy and Danish governmental subsidies. 

​

What’s happening now and why

From 2025 onwards, Trump has expressed his intent multiple times to purchase or even annex Greenland. However, recent American interests (mostly, Trump’s personal interests) in Greenland were sparked by Arctic geopolitics in the early 2010s. As global warming melted ice in the Arctic, which not only opened the door for various shipping routes through the region, but also made the natural resources in the Arctic (eg. oil, natural gas reserves) much easier to access. Therefore, countries such as Russia and China started to expand their presence in the region, though such action has been complicated by various issues such as territorial disputes and environmental concerns.

 

As Russia is viewed as an adversary to the US, it is only natural that the US tries to increase their defensive strength and military presence in the region to counter Russian influence. As a result, during Trump’s first administration, Trump had come up with proposals to purchase Greenland, though such attempts were firmly denied by both the Greenlandic and Danish governments, stating that Greenland “was not for sale” (Staff, 2026b). Trump also sought to expand American presence in Greenland itself, opening a US consulate on the island in 2020. 

 

After Trump was reelected in 2024, the purchase of Greenland was mentioned multiple times by his aides as a prominent foreign policy goal. Such desires to purchase or annex Greenland were made clear by Trump himself before he even took office in January 2025, as he said on Truth Social,"For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity." (Shabad, 2024) He later also stated that the US government would not rule out using economic or military force against Greenland, raising tensions between the two countries, as the Danish government once again rebuked Trump’s proposals and reiterated that Greenland would not be for sale.

 

However, things came to a head at the start of 2026. On January 3rd, 2026, the US military bombed parts of Caracas, Venezuela’s capital, captured Nicolas Maduro, then-president of Venezuela, and transported him back to the US to face trial for charges related to narco-terrorism. Trump stated that same day, that Greenland was absolutely needed for US defense, with his close aide Stephen Miller stating that the US had the right to take Greenland. This raised serious concerns not just in Denmark, but worldwide, that similar captures could happen to members of the Greenlandic government. These concerns were only exacerbated by further comments from Trump, stating that “it may be a choice” between acquiring Greenland or keeping NATO intact (Nicholson, 2026). 

 

As a result, on January 6th, 2026, the prime minister of Denmark Mette Frederiksen and various other European leaders issued a joint statement opposing Trump’s comments regarding the annexation of Greenland. Furthermore, in response to such threats by Trump, Operation Arctic Endurance was started on January 15th, 2026, when a number of European NATO countries deployed military personnel to Greenland to take part in a joint military exercise in a show of force. Although Trump initially threatened to impose tariffs on Denmark and various neighbouring countries if they did not agree to his plans for Greenland, he later backed down publicly during the 2026 World Economic Forum in the face of unprecedented strong economic, military, and political resistance from European countries, officially ruling out the use of military force to acquire Greenland. He later stated that he had reached a “framework of a future deal” on Greenland and the Arctic with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, though as of now, details regarding the deal itself are scarce. Since then, many Greenlandic and Danish politicians have stated that a deal cannot be reached on Greenland without the involvement of Denmark and Greenland.

​

What this could mean for the EU and NATO

American threats to annex Greenland have severely altered ties between NATO countries, and greatly affected the unity of NATO as a whole (Cook & Press, 2026). As NATO is built on the principle “an attack on one is an attack on all,” having one NATO member state attack another would be extraordinary, and would certainly spell the end of NATO. Although NATO has dealt with skirmishes between member states previously, the Greenland crisis marks a first where the alliance’s leading power openly challenges the borders of another alliance member. Many have claimed that such aggressive posturing endangers the general world peace and security that was painstakingly established post-WW2, and that tensions within NATO as a whole between the US and other European nations would provide the perfect breeding ground for the expansion of Russian and Chinese influence in Europe, which the US had spent decades in the past trying to counteract. 

 

Furthermore, such aggressive foreign policy adopted by the Trump administration towards Europe has been criticised by many, as despite the EU being one of the US’ largest trading partners since its conception, Trump’s economic and military threats towards the region as a whole have permanently damaged transatlantic relations, with one European diplomat saying that Trump’s “whirlwind of absurdity that damages transatlantic relations, distracts from Ukraine and makes China and Russia very happy.” (Ronald et al., 2026). This is evidenced by various EU nations using language usually reserved for adversarial nations against the US, showing how much relations between the two parties have deteriorated. The damaging of such relations would be incredibly harmful to the EU as a whole, having been incredibly reliant on the US for defense and security via NATO, and would increase the EU’s vulnerability to Russian threats and influence. 

 

Looking towards the future, such damage inflicted by the Trump administration on transatlantic relations cannot be easily undone. Perhaps it may be time for European nations to rethink their economic and military dependency on its transatlantic friend-turned-foe, to better ensure their security independently in the turbulent years to come. 

​

​

​

​

Glossary: 

1. NATO: The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) is an intergovernmental military alliance of 32 countries aiming to ensure collective security among its member states.

2. Cold War: The Cold War was a prolonged period of geopolitical rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union (present-day Russia). Waged on political, economic, and propaganda fronts, the two countries fought to contain each other's influence in its respective regions, but never engaged in direct combat with each other.

3. USSR: Founded in 1922, the USSR (otherwise known as the Soviet Union) was a federation of national republics in Northern and Eastern Europe that comprised 15 republics at its peak. It was one of the world's two superpowers at the time, holding the largest standing military and the second-largest economy in the world until its dissolution in 1991.

4. Truth Social: A social media platform owned by Donald Trump, established after he was banned from many major social media platforms in the wake of the January 6th Capitol attacks. 

​

References: 

Greenland’s Autonomy Explained: The Journey from Danish Rule to Self-Governance – Aarhus2019 –. (2025, January 2). Aarhus2019.Dk. https://aarhus2019.dk/greenlands-autonomy-explained-the-journey-from-danish-rule-to-self-governance/ 

​

Staff, A. J. (2026, January 4). Denmark PM urges Trump to stop “threatening” Greenland. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/4/denmark-pm-urges-trump-to-stop-threatening-greenland 

​

Jazeera, A. (2026, January 22). Trump’s Greenland “framework” deal: What we know about it, what we don’t. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/22/trumps-greenland-framework-deal-what-we-know-about-it-what-we-dont 

​

Britannica Editors. (2026, January 6). Why Is the U.S. Interested in Greenland? | History, Russia, China, Europe, & NATO. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Why-Is-the-US-Interested-in-Greenland 

​

Nicholson, T. (2026, January 9). Trump: “It may be a choice” between seizing Greenland or preserving NATO. POLITICO. https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-interview-us-greenland-grab-nato-preservation-choice/ 

​

Starcevic, S. (2025, January 7). Trump refuses to rule out using military force to take Greenland and Panama Canal. POLITICO. https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-military-force-greenland-panama-canal/ 

​

Bierman, P. (2026, January 14). The complicated relationship between the US and Greenland explained. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/greenland-trump-why-usa-military-b2900383.html 

​

Besch, S. (2026, January 22). The Greenland Episode Must Be a Lesson for Europe and NATO. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2026/01/greenland-trump-europe-nato-fallout-davos 

​

Wikipedia Contributors. (2026, February 4). Greenland crisis. Wikipedia; Wikimedia Foundation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_crisis# 

 

Staff, A. J. (2026b, January 8). “Greenland is not for sale,” lawmaker says amid Trump’s escalating threats. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/8/greenland-is-not-for-sale-lawmaker-says-amid-trumps-escalating-threats 

​

Shabad, R. (2024, December 23). Trump says ownership of Greenland “is an absolute necessity.” NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-ownership-greenland-absolute-necessity-rcna185197 

​

Cook, L., & Press, T. A. (2026, February). Trump’s fight with NATO over Greenland “crossed a line that cannot be uncrossed” and weakens the alliance long term, expert says. Fortune. https://fortune.com/2026/02/01/trumps-nato-fight-greenland-control-tariffs-alliance-long-term-damage/ 

 

Ronald, I., Walsh, N. P., Sebastian, C., & Ataman, J. (2026, January 22). Trump’s posturing over Greenland has changed the transatlantic alliance forever, European officials say. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/22/europe/trump-greenland-europe-reaction-intl