Trump’s Greenland misadventure

As President Donald Trump begins his second term, his heightened interest in acquiring Greenland has taken the shape of a geopolitical initiative with serious ramifications and potentially dire consequences. His rhetoric and actions — including threats of imposing punitive tariffs on Denmark, a refusal to rule out military intervention and public ridicule of Denmark’s defence capabilities — underscore the gravity of the situation.

Trump’s daring gambit not only threatens NATO’s cohesion but also raises profound questions about sovereignty, geopolitical rivalry, climate security and the future of the Arctic. Greenland’s strategic importance lies at the intersection of geography, resources and climate. Positioned between North America and Europe, it is a key vantage point for monitoring Arctic shipping routes and countering Russian and Chinese influence. The island’s melting ice caps have revealed vast reserves of rare earth minerals essential for green technology, besides untapped oil and gas deposits.

These resources are critical for both economic security and the global transition to sustainable energy, making Greenland central to the fight against climate change.

As Arctic Sea lanes become navigable due to climate change, Greenland’s geopolitical value has skyrocketed, while its role in climate security has become increasingly significant. Trump’s recent comments aboard Air Force One, where he reiterated his confidence in acquiring Greenland, signal a troubling disregard for the autonomy of its 57,000 residents. “I do believe Greenland we’ll get— because it really has to do with freedom of the world,” Trump said, framing his ambitions as a matter of global security.

However, his rhetoric has met staunch resistance. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has launched a diplomatic offensive, meeting key European leaders, including German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron, to solidify opposition to US ambitions.

Underlining the need for European unity, Frederiksen has said: “We need a stronger and more resolute Europe standing increasingly in its own right, capable of defending and promoting Europe and European interests. We have faced great trials before, and European cooperation has proven its worth in handling crises.” She has also coordinated closely with other Nordic leaders to ensure regional solidarity, describing the situation as “a serious challenge requiring unwavering alliances.”

Greenland’s ice sheets play a pivotal role in regulating global sea levels and climate patterns. Their rapid melting contributes to rising sea levels and altered ocean currents, with potentially devastating effects on global ecosystems. Securing Greenland is not just a matter of economic or military strategy, it is essential for addressing the climate crisis. The island’s vast yet fragile environment is a critical component of the Earth’s climate system, and any geopolitical contest over Greenland must prioritise its protection and sustainability.

For the United States, Greenland offers military, economic and environmental advantages. The existing US Space Base at Pituffik provides early warning radar capabilities critical for missile defence. Greater US control will enhance surveillance of rival powers’ activities in the Arctic. As the region becomes a hotspot for resource extraction and new shipping routes, it becomes even more essential that these developments align with global climate goals.

Denmark has not stood idle. In response to Trump’s renewed pressure, the Danish government has announced a $2 billion investment to bolster its Arctic defences. This includes the deployment of three new Arctic ships, long-range drones and enhanced satellite capabilities.

The move is aimed at reinforcing Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland and countering any external threats. Additionally, Frederiksen has worked to address domestic concerns, introducing measures to tackle racism against Greenlanders and strengthening Greenland’s economic development, including initiatives to increase mining revenues and reducing reliance on Danish subsidies.

Despite international norms against territorial acquisition, Trump’s administration appears to be exploring various pathways to bring Greenland under US influence. While direct purchase faces significant legal and diplomatic hurdles, other options — such as a Compact of Free Association — are being considered.

This approach would grant Greenland economic aid and military protection in exchange for greater US influence, though it would depend on Greenland achieving independence from Denmark.

Alternatively, Trump could push for an increased US military presence on the island, asserting greater control without formal sovereignty. Trump’s refusal to rule out military action has alarmed allies and adversaries alike.

Such a move would undermine the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity that underpin the international order. It would also risk deepening divisions within NATO, as Denmark’s status as a NATO ally complicates any aggressive US moves in Greenland. Actions that challenge NATO’s cohesion could set a dangerous precedent, legitimising territorial ambitions of other powers.

Greenland’s significance extends beyond US interests. Russia and China have been steadily increasing their Arctic presence, with Russia reopening Soviet-era military bases and China investing in Arctic infrastructure under its ‘Polar Silk Road’ initiative.

US efforts to counter these moves have been inconsistent, leaving a vacuum that Trump’s Greenland strategy claims to fill. However, unilateral US actions could destabilise the Arctic’s fragile geopolitical balance. Russia has already expressed alarm at Trump’s rhetoric, warning that such moves could escalate tensions.

Meanwhile, China’s interest in Greenland’s rare earth minerals adds another layer of complexity. A US push to secure Greenland’s resources would likely provoke Chinese countermeasures. Trump’s aggressive stance has particularly destabilised the Nordic region, raising questions about NATO’s cohesion. For Sweden and Finland, Trump’s rhetoric against Denmark highlights a troubling paradox.

As new NATO members, they sought the protection of the alliance to counter foreign aggression. Yet the US, the most powerful NATO member, is now creating a direct security challenge for one of their Nordic neighbours. Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland is not just a Danish concern — it is a Nordic concern. A threat to Denmark’s territorial integrity undermines the principle of collective defence NATO is built upon. Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland is more than a real estate pipedream; it is a geopolitical manoeuvre with far-reaching consequences.

Ashok Swain is a professor of peace and conflict research at Uppsala University, Sweden. More of his writings can be read here