Trump’s Greenland Gambit: Arctic Ambition Threatens NATO’s Foundation

21 January 2026 – The geopolitical spotlight is fixed on the Arctic as US President Donald Trump intensifies a controversial campaign to bring Greenland under American control. Framed as a national security imperative but viewed by critics as a resource grab, the president’s ambition has escalated from a dismissed 2019 proposal to a central tenet of his second-term foreign policy, complete with threats of tariffs and a refusal to rule out force. The move has triggered a profound crisis with Denmark, a founding NATO ally, and united European leaders in defence of Greenlandic sovereignty, raising existential questions for the transatlantic alliance.

The “Absolute Necessity”: Trump’s Rationale

President Trump has consistently articulated two primary arguments for US acquisition of Greenland: national security and economic resource security. He portrays the island, with its population of just 57,000, as a critical bulwark against Russian and Chinese expansion in an increasingly accessible Arctic. “We need Greenland for national security, and that includes Europe,” Trump stated in a recent interview, claiming the territory is “surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships.” This narrative is bolstered by Greenland’s strategic location within the GIUK (Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom) gap, a historic naval chokepoint, and the presence of Pituffik Space Base, the US military’s northernmost installation.

Concurrently, the administration eyes Greenland’s vast, untapped mineral wealth. The island holds significant deposits of rare earth elements—critical for telecommunications, renewable energy, and advanced weaponry—as well as potential oil, gas, uranium, and gold. With China dominating global supply chains for many critical minerals, US officials view Greenland as a strategic alternative. While Trump publicly denies resources are the primary motive, his former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz has explicitly linked the push to “critical minerals” and “natural resources.”

Key Facts: The Greenland Crisis

A Strategy of Pressure and Provocation

The Trump administration has moved beyond rhetoric to tangible pressure. In late December 2025, President Trump appointed Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as a special envoy tasked to “lead the charge” for Greenland becoming part of the US. This followed a high-profile visit by Vice President JD Vance and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz to Pituffik Base in March 2025, where Vance criticised past American and Danish “neglect” of the island. Most provocatively, following European pushback, Trump threatened escalating tariffs—starting at 10% on 1 February and rising to 25% by 1 June—on eight NATO allies including Denmark, the UK, and Germany unless a deal for Greenland’s “complete and total purchase” is reached.

Experts suggest this aggressive posture mirrors a broader “Donroe Doctrine”—a Trump-era adaptation of the Monroe Doctrine—asserting US dominance in the Western Hemisphere, now extended to the Arctic. Parallels are drawn to the recent US military operation in Venezuela, which ousted President Nicolás Maduro, with analysts noting Trump’s unambiguous interest in that country’s oil reserves.

Debunking the Security Threat

Numerous security analysts have challenged the foundational premise of an acute threat. Peter Viggo Jakobsen of the Royal Danish Defence College told Sky News the Russian and Chinese ships Trump cites are “a figment of his imagination,” noting China does not operate warships in the Arctic and Russian submarine activity near Greenland is minimal. He argues the US already has “de facto military control” of Greenland through the existing 1951 defence agreement, which allows Washington to expand its presence after consulting Copenhagen and Nuuk. “The only external threat to Greenland,” Jakobsen contends, “is the US one.”

This view is echoed by Ole Wæver, a political scientist at the University of Copenhagen, who states, “Bottom line is the Americans are militarily on Greenland as much as they want… If President Trump said, ‘We need to put up a new base in Greenland,’ they wouldn’t get a no.” The consensus among experts is that the US can achieve all its stated security objectives through enhanced cooperation without challenging sovereignty.

The Stakes for NATO and Global Order

The potential consequences of a forcible US takeover are cataclysmic for the transatlantic alliance. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has stated unequivocally that a US military attack on Greenland, a part of the Kingdom of Denmark, would mean “everything stops… including our NATO.” Such an action would blatantly violate NATO’s Article 5, which treats an attack on one member as an attack on all, effectively destroying the alliance’s credibility.

While some analysts, like Sky News’ Deborah Haynes, suggest Trump may be “gambling that Washington could get away with an Arctic land grab as the rest of NATO needs the US more than he needs them,” the political fallout would be severe. It would signal a definitive end to the post-WWII rules-based international order, validating a “might-makes-right” approach that could embolden actions by Russia and China elsewhere. Steve Lamy, Professor Emeritus at USC, warns it could prompt Europe and Canada to form a new collective defence organisation without the United States.

Greenland’s Agency and the Path Forward

At the heart of the crisis is the principle of self-determination. The 2009 Greenland Self-Government Act recognises the Greenlandic people’s right to decide their future. Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen, leading a broad unity government formed in response to US pressure, has been unequivocal: “Greenland is for Greenlanders, not for anybody else.” The local sentiment strongly favours a gradual move towards full independence from Denmark, but on Greenland’s own terms and timeline, not under American coercion.

The path forward likely lies in diplomacy that respects this agency. As former US Ambassador to NATO Nick Burns notes, “There’s a way for the Trump administration to get what it says it wants… by respecting Denmark, working with them diplomatically.” This could involve expanded defence cooperation under the existing treaty and encouraging US investment in Greenland’s mining sector—offering Washington strategic benefits without triggering a rupture with its allies. For now, Denmark and Greenland are betting that institutional constraints, congressional oversight in the US, and unwavering European solidarity will gradually defuse the crisis, preserving sovereignty and alliance cohesion in a rapidly changing Arctic.

Frequently Asked Questions

Has the US tried to buy Greenland before?

Yes. The idea has a long history. President Harry Truman formally offered Denmark $100 million in gold for Greenland in 1946, but was rejected. The US ultimately purchased the Danish Virgin Islands in 1917. Donald Trump first floated the idea publicly in 2019 during his first term, which Danish PM Mette Frederiksen dismissed as “absurd.”

Does the US need to own Greenland to use its bases or minerals?

No. The 1951 US-Denmark Defence Agreement grants the US broad rights to operate and expand its military presence in Greenland. Furthermore, Greenland is open to foreign investment in its mining sector. As experts note, sovereignty is not a prerequisite for accessing the strategic assets that motivate Washington’s interest.

What is the “Donroe Doctrine”?

A term analysts use to describe the Trump administration’s apparent foreign policy approach, echoing the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine. It asserts a US right to dominate and intervene in its “near abroad,” which under Trump has been expansively interpreted to include not just Latin America but also Arctic territories like Greenland.

Could Trump actually use military force to take Greenland?

While the President has refused to rule it out, most analysts consider a direct military invasion highly unlikely due to the catastrophic consequences for NATO and international law. However, the administration is employing other forms of coercion, including economic threats via tariffs, to pressure Denmark and Greenland.