In a move that has sent shockwaves through international diplomacy, US President Donald Trump has forcefully revived his controversial ambition to bring Greenland under American control. This comes just days after the dramatic capture of Venezuela's President Nicolás Maduro, signalling a new phase of assertive US foreign policy. President Trump insists the United States "needs" Greenland for national security, citing increased Russian and Chinese activities in the rapidly changing Arctic and the strategic opportunities presented by melting ice caps.
European Allies React with Fury and Alarm
The US President's refusal to rule out military force has infuriated Denmark, which governs the vast, mineral-rich island as a self-governing territory. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen issued a stark warning, stating that any American attempt to seize Greenland would mean "everything stops," including the NATO alliance itself. Leaders from Britain, France, Germany, and Italy have swiftly lined up behind Copenhagen, unanimously stressing that "Greenland belongs to its people."
This confrontation raises a pivotal question: what is Trump's true objective? Is it purely about missile defence and Arctic security, access to critical minerals like rare earth elements, or a more symbolic revival of 19th-century expansionism framed within modern geopolitics?
A Strategic Island the US Already Dominates
Greenland's immense strategic value is undeniable. Positioned between North America and Europe, it commands the crucial GIUK gap—the maritime corridor linking the Arctic to the Atlantic. During the Cold War, fears of Soviet missiles passing over the island led to a significant US military presence.
That presence never fully vanished. Under a 1951 defence agreement with Denmark, the US operates the critical Pituffik Space Base in northwest Greenland, a hub for missile warning, defence, and space surveillance. While troop numbers have dwindled from a Cold War peak of 6,000 to under 200 today, the treaty grants Washington the right to expand its military footprint with minimal formal notification to Copenhagen.
This existing framework puzzles many allies. As security expert Kristine Berzina notes, the US could significantly increase its presence "without anything really needing to be done." Denmark has repeatedly offered more bases and deeper defence cooperation, making Trump's aggressive fixation appear disproportionate if security were the sole concern.
Mineral Wealth and Immense Practical Hurdles
Beneath its frozen surface, Greenland holds substantial mineral resources, but their scale is often exaggerated. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates the island holds about 1.5 million metric tonnes of rare earth elements. This places it among notable global reserves, comparable to the US and larger than Canada's, but far smaller than China's dominant 44 million metric tonnes.
Deposits like those at Kvanefjeld in the south contain minerals vital for electric vehicles, wind turbines, and defence tech. However, Greenland's wealth remains largely untapped. Only one mine is operational, with harsh weather, a lack of infrastructure, and environmental laws—like a 2021 statute limiting uranium byproducts—posing massive obstacles to large-scale extraction.
The MAGA Symbolism of Size and Legacy
Analysts suggest Trump's rhetoric points to motives beyond pure strategy or resources. Since returning to the White House, he has invoked a revived "Manifest Destiny" and an aggressive "Don-roe Doctrine" for the Western Hemisphere.
Greenland fits this worldview perfectly. Geographically part of North America and roughly the size of Alaska with only 57,000 inhabitants, its incorporation would make the US the world's third-largest country by landmass, surpassing China. "This notion of maps and legacy is important," Berzina observes. "American greatness, in very literal terms, matters a lot to MAGA."
The White House confirms Trump is studying the option of purchasing Greenland, reviving a 19th-century idea last formally attempted by President Harry Truman in 1946. While the US successfully bought the Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917, the response now is unequivocal: Greenland is not for sale. Polls show a mere 6% of Greenlanders support joining the US, with 85% opposed.
Independence and Military Action: The Extreme Scenarios
A more subtle strategy debated in Washington is supporting Greenlandic independence, followed by a Compact of Free Association (COFA) with the US—similar to deals with Pacific nations like Micronesia. This would grant the US exclusive military access in return for financial support, theoretically blocking Russian or Chinese influence.
However, the most destabilising option remains outright annexation. Danish officials privately admit a US military takeover would be swift, given Greenland's lack of a territorial army. Yet the political fallout would be catastrophic, potentially dismantling NATO trust and the rules-based international order. As Thomas Crosbie of the Royal Danish Defence College argues, the US gains nothing tangible by flying its flag over Nuuk; it already enjoys all strategic advantages. The change would be purely symbolic.
For now, diplomacy continues. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is scheduled to meet Danish and Greenlandic officials next week, with the White House maintaining that diplomacy is Trump's "first option." But the revival of this territorial ambition has already opened a deep rift with European allies, framing a critical test for transatlantic relations and global stability.
