You might wonder why Greenland, a territory with a population of less than 60,000, has suddenly dominated news headlines. And it is not an environmental call for help despite the fact that ice sheets are shrinking. Rather, its geographical positioning and large mineral reserves have garnered much attention from influential political leaders worldwide, and in particular from US President Donald Trump.
(disclaimer: this article was written before Davos and so may be subject to change)
This is not the first time the US has shown interest in Greenland. During the 19th century, then-Secretary of State William H Seward suggested purchase of Greenland soon after the US acquired Ala Alaska from Russia. In 1910, US Ambassador to Denmark, Maurice Francis Egan, proposed that the US give Denmark the Philippine island of Mindanao, then a US territory, in exchange for Greenland and the Danish West Indies. This proposition was hindered by the fast approaching first World War. During World War II, after Germany invaded Denmark, the US took up responsibility for Greenland’s defence and established a military presence on the island. In 1946, under US President Harry Truman, US$100 million was offered in gold in exchange for the territory, which was denied. In 2019, during his first presidency, US President Donald Trump said he was ‘looking’ at acquiring Greenland, saying that it would be ‘essentially a large real estate deal’. The prime minister of Denmark, which owns Greenland, called the prospect of sale ‘absurd’. After winning the election again in 2024, Trump revisited the idea of purchasing Greenland and has kept it on the horizon ever since. Early last year, Trump stated, “I think we’re going to get it. One way or the other, we’re going to get it”. This expansionist ideology mirrors that of Manifest Destiny, a 19th-century belief that the US was divinely destined to expand across the continent.
Trump has repeatedly stressed that the US needs Greenland for national security reasons.
Geographically, Greenland sits in a prominent location, positioned between the US, Europe and Russia. Greenland is also home to the U.S. Pituffik Space Base, the Defence Department’s northernmost base, where about 150 American troops are stationed and which serves as a first line of defence against a missile attack over the Arctic. The risk of Russian expansion westwards, and most importantly into the Arctic, is of great concern to the US. Russia controls roughly half of the land and half of the maritime exclusive economic zone north of the Arctic Circle, and two-thirds of the Arctic region’s residents live in Russia. It has been expanding its military footprint in the Arctic for decades, investing in new and existing facilities in the region, endangering the prominence and control of the US in the region. Trump argues that current US presence is insufficient to defend Greenland against Russia or China, and asserts that neither Greenland nor the EU are capable of protectingit.
Forecasts suggest global heating could have rendered the frozen waters around the North Pole almost ice-free in summer by the early 2040s. This potentially opens a new shortcut from Asia to North America, creating new routes for trading, shipping and fishing. The Northern Sea Route, which runs along Russia’s Arctic coast from Europe to Asia, could be very important because it has the capability to reduce shipping times from western Europe to eastern Asia by around a half. A future Transpolar Sea Route (TSR) could see commercial shipping cutting right across the North Pole. This is a threat to the US, not only due to Russian physical expansion westwards, but also because it gives Russian goods and services much greater access to global trade. It also increases the competitiveness of Chinese exports, already a major concern for the US, as Chinese goods can be shipped across the world at much faster speeds and lower costs. Physical barriers to conflict are melting as the ice thaws, making the US more vulnerable to attack. A new potential for economic and military conflict is emerging from under the melting ice, and China, Russia and the US are locked in a battle for dominance.
Perhaps most importantly, Greenland is rich in oil and rare earth minerals. Trump has already ramped up the scale and speed of future drilling plans in Alaska, so securing Greenland’s resources seems like an ideal next step to ensure market stability by reducing reliance on volatile oil prices. Melting Arctic ice is exposing more mineral and oil deposits, increasing the viability of extraction and drawing even more attention to the prospect of a US acquisition of Greenland.
Trump has threatened increased tariffs on nations that oppose his takeover of Greenland, stating that tariffs could rise to 25% by June. However, it is unclear whether this will diminish resistance. Keir Starmer says he “will not yield” on the future of Greenland “under threats of tariffs”. Additionally, it is still unknown how Trump intends to pay for the territory that Greenlanders have repeatedly said is not for sale. He has suggested using revenue from tariffs to fund a host of his policies, although this could create a legal predicament. The Supreme Court is expected to decide soon whether the president’s tariffs, which he issued through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, wereconstitutional, putting in jeopardy the tens of billions in tariff revenue Customs and Border Protection said the US took in last year. The US might be forced to refund that money, and consequently the possibility of a US-owned Greenland would be jeopardised.
Many international players are defiantly standing with Denmark and the people of Greenland. The Norwegian foreign minister has underlined that mutual respect for the sovereignty of Greenland is a non-negotiable principle of international law and co-operation. The EU has made clear that the security of the Arctic is a strategic priority and that it is firmly committed to safeguarding it. The European Parliament has also said it will continue to reinforce European defence capabilities and ensure that EU member states uphold their NATO commitments, including sustained investment in defence and a strong military presence in the Arctic. NATO’s Enhanced Forward Presence forces, a deployment of troops across areas of Europe vulnerable to attack, act as a deterrent against invasion. Expanding deployments to Greenland may be necessary, although this would come at an immense financial cost, potentially causing backlash from member states and limiting the ability of the alliance to respond.
Threats from the US have created an unprecedented crisis within NATO, which is already struggling to define its role in the face of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. NATO’s response will therefore have broader implications. Critics, including Trump, doubt the ability of NATO to protect Western countries in the complex world we live in today, and so the way that NATO acts will fuel further debate. The core principle underpinning NATO is ‘collective security’, whereby an attack on one member state is considered an attack on all. If Trump were to violate international law while expanding its presence in Greenland, NATO member states would likely face conflicting decisions, as both Denmark and the US are member states. If diplomatic discussion were to falter and tensions could not be resolved, the competence of NATO would likely becalled further into question.
The situation in Greenland will have wide implications for the future of geopolitics, climate change in the Arctic, and Trump’s other territorial demands. The climate crisis is evolving, and it significantly influences geopolitics today. As Arctic ice continues to melt due to global warming, Greenland is emerging as a rare, untapped source of oil and gas and critical earth minerals. This will likely bring greater interest in mineral extraction in the area, which risks detrimental ocean pollution and emissions of greenhouse gases, both of which contribute to further global warming. Trump is not known for his efforts to curb climate change, so increased American control in the Arctic is unlikely to correlate with increased environmental protection measures. The recent withdrawal of the US from the Paris Climate Convention has already limited the ability of countries to address climate change on a global level. Some may worry that Trump won’t stop with Greenland. Trump has previously expressed his interest in Canada as an additional US state, and has previously described the Canadian-American border as ‘artificial’. However, the likelihood of Trump fully following through with this is greatly contested. Former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said there was “not a snowball’s chance in hell” of Canada joining the US. It can be said that today’s reality is vastly different from the era of Manifest Destiny, and international cooperation stands a significant chance against unleashed American expansion. Hopefully, this is the case with Greenland.
