The fixation of US President Donald Trump with Greenland is no longer a diplomatic peculiarity but a serious geopolitical message that can reveal widening fault lines in the Western bloc with uncomfortable questions related to power, sovereignty, and Nato itself.
Trump’s constant call for the United States to take over Greenland has brought the matter into focus through the lens of national security.
However, the notion has been rejected outright by the government of Greenland, as well as Denmark, the Nato state that has sovereignty over the area. Yet this has had little effect on the tone of the debate in Washington.
What had initially been a misguided idea involving a ‘buy out’ of Greenland is now developing into something much bigger.
Why Greenland is Back on Global Chessboard
The significance of Greenland does not lie in its population of 56,000 people who are largely Inuit, but in its geography. It is at the intersection of the Arctic, North America, and Europe, making the island of ever-increasing significance in terms of global security concerns.
The Arctic has seen a rise in popularity due to climate change, making it accessible to resources like rare earth metals, uranium, and iron, which are essential for military and technological applications and the energy revolution.
Russia and China have also been developing their Arctic presence, making Western nations nervous that had considered the Arctic militarily dormant.
Trump is adamant, however, that minerals do not drive his interest in the territory.
“We need Greenland for national security, not minerals,” he told the media.
“The Russians and the Chinese are trying to take advantage of our weaknesses in the Arctic. They’re building their ships, and we’re building ours. That’s a national security issue,” he stated.
Whether or not this is a credible concern, in any case, the US is expressing a larger concern for the matter at hand. The Arctic is quickly being associated with the control of security routes.
From Proposal to Provocation
Trump’s language became much tougher after he returned to the White House in January 2025.
After an American militaiy intervention in Venezuela, he spoke once again of an American takeover of Greenland, and he refused to say he would not use force.
Jensen, the Prime Minister of Greenland, was blunt in response to the proposed move: “This is a ‘fantasy’ and he should stop the thuándra
of persuasion.” However, high-ranking officials within Trump’s inner circle have continued to push forward with the theory.
One of Trump’s closest associates, Stephen Miller, stated that an American presence in Greenland would protect Nato’s Arctic policy and that “the US is the power within Nato,” and as such they had the right to protect the area as they saw fit.
Just this argument has unsettled European capitals particularly because this approach equates leadership of an alliance with ownership.
Denmark’s response has been quick and unexpectedly harsh. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen stated that any effort to take over Greenland would literally call into question the existence of Nato itself.
The rest of European leaders have fallen in line with Denmark’s position, signing a joint declaration stating that only the people and Denmark can decide the future of Greenland.
In the alliance based on trust and collective security, Trump’s approach has turned out to be a test of strength.
The question is not what importance Greenland holds strategically, since everyone agrees on this, but whether a NATO member has the right to menace another in the name of collective security.
This is where the problem lies. The aim of Nato was to defend against aggression. It certainly wasn’t to condone internal force.
Complicated Relationship
Greenland is important to the USA well before the days of Donald Trump. In World War 2, when Nazi Germany occupied Denmark, the USA deployed its troops to Greenland to establish bases; some of those bases can still be found today.
“Pituffik Space Base remains a vital component to the global systems for missile warning and space surveillance.”
In 1951, a defence agreement gave the US vast rights on the island and emphasized that Washington already enjoyed extensive strategic access but without sovereignty.
Since gaining home rule in 1979, Greenland has administered most matters internally, except defence and foreign matters, which are administered by Denmark.
This is far from an optimal solution, but the system has existed.
What Greenlanders Are Saying
Public opinion surveys reveal that many Greenlanders prefer independence within the future. One thing they firmly reject, however, is being annexed by the United States.
“No more pressure. No more fantasies of annexation,” Prime Minister Nielsen asserted earlier in the year, “but dialogue should always be based on respect for international law.”
This expresses a profound grievance: Greenlanders do not want to be viewed and treated like a geopolitical commodity to be bought, traded, or assimilated.
Regarding the potential sale of the island of Greenland by the United States to Denmark, as one former leader of Greenland said when Trump initially considered its purchase, “It diminishes the people, the land, to be reduced to a price.”
More than Greenland
At the end of the day, this is more than about Greenland. It has to do with the way power is wielded in the face of the rapidly changing nature of the new world order.
Trump’s Greenland move disputes the correlation between shared security and shared consent.
The Greenland affair is a warning light for Nato. If the oneness of Nato can be put to strain by differing perspectives on ‘national security,’ then perhaps it is not the Arctic that is dangerous, but rather Nato itself.
