In 2019, the former President of United Stated Donald Trump publicly expressed his desire to purchase Greenland, the statement that rapidly garnered global attention and widespread controversy. Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, has been a strategic region in the Arctic due to its abundant natural resources and unique geopolitical position. Trump’s proposal was firmly rejected by the Denmark government. With Trump set to return to the White House in 2025, he has reiterated the importance of U.S. control over Greenland. This article aims to explore the behind reasons of Trump’s remarks about Greenland and the controversy it has caused in Europe, also mentioning the possible profound impacts on U.S.-European relations and European politics.
In late December 2024, Trump posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, that “For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.” This was not the first time Trump had proposed the idea of making Greenland be a part of the United Stated. During his first term in 2019, he had already proposed the idea of purchasing Greenland, which rejected by Denmark. Recently, Trump not only has revived the notion of owning Greenland, but also refusing to deny that he may use military to take control of the island if necessary. Both the Denmark and Greenland governments have responded to the proposal that emphasizing Greenland belongs to its local people and will not be sold now or in the future, while remaining open to cooperation.
It is worth noting that the location and rich natural resources of Greenland are likely one of the main reasons for Trump’s renewed interest. As the world’s largest island, Greenland spans 836,000 square miles, which located on the Arctic Ocean, east of Canada, and has a vital position within the Arctic Circle. Its proximity to both Washington and Moscow—roughly 2,000 miles each—positions Greenland as one of the shortest routes for Russia to the U.S. Marc Jacobsen, a professor at the Royal Danish Defense College, explained that if Russian missiles targeting the U.S., the shortest trajectory would be through the Arctic and Greenland. Indeed, a study by the National Institute of Polar Research highlighted that both China and Russia have been bolstering their military presence in the Arctic in recent years, advising for the U.S. to enhance its presence in the region to counter the rivals. Lars Løkke Rasmussen from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark stated that Russia is arming itself, and China starting to show interest as well. For this competition reasons, Washington views Greenland as strategically critical to U.S. national security and has already deployed missile warning systems at its Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base) in Greenland. Simultaneously, the melting ice in the Arctic is turning the region into a contested area for shipping, energy, and other natural resources. Greenland is rich in cobalt, copper, nickel, and rare earth minerals, which are essential for producing batteries and advanced technologies. Marc Jacobsen noted that the untapped rare earth minerals deposits in southern Greenland might be a driving factor of the America, as these minerals are indispensable for technologies ranging from smartphones to wind turbines. Similarly, a Paris analyst Alix Frangeul-Alves pointed out that rare earth minerals are crucial for green high technologies, with China dominating the global supply—a situation the U.S. views as a security risk. As a result, Greenland’s location and resource security are likely motivations behind Trump’s proposals, as he seeks to ensure their safety to strengthen the U.S. capabilities to against potential adversaries.
Trump’s expansionist rhetoric has sparked different reactions within the European Union. Ulrik Pram Gad, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies, characterized Trump’s remarks as a form of threat-based diplomacy. Meanwhile, the UK Foreign Secretary expressed skepticism about the possibility of the U.S. using force to invade another nation. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni similarly dismissed the possibilities of the U.S. occupying territories of interest in the near future. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot has the same perspective but view the remarks as a warning, signaling challenges to international norms.
While several analysts and European leaders believe Trump is unlikely to use force against Greenland, his comments have heightened concerns about regional stability, particularly in Denmark and Greenland. The senator of Greenland, Kuno Fencker stated he did not view Trump’s proposals only as a threat. Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte B. Egede affirmed their readiness for negotiations, stating,“Cooperation is built on dialogue and finding solutions together.” There are Reports suggest that Denmark has expressed openness to discussing other requests from U.S., including a possible expansion of the U.S. military presence on the island. Analysts believe Denmark is trying to discern intentions of Trump to avoid a public confrontation with the new U.S. administration.
Furthermore, Trump’s statement about Greenland could damage U.S.-Europe relations further. Since Trump’s first presidential mandate, he has repeatedly questioned NATO’s relevance and clashed with European allies on issues such as trade and national defense. His repeated proposals regarding Greenland have deepened insecurities in U.S.-Europe relations, potentially destabilizing NATO and transatlantic ties. Additionally, Trump’s unilateralism is expected to influence European policy directions. “We are heading into more conflict, more chaos, and more uncertainty.” warned by Khara, the director of the Centre for Defense Strategies.
In conclusion, Donald Trump’s interest in Greenland highlights the Greenland’s strategic significance and rich natural resources, which are cores to Arctic geopolitics. The reasons for the U.S.’s determination for Greenland are complex, this article has concluded both security and competitive motivations. While Denmark and Greenland have firmly rejected any notions of U.S. ownership, the proposal has reignited concerns about sovereignty, international norms, and regional stability; moreover, it will strained transatlantic relations and cause more uncertainty.
