Against the backdrop of strong opposition from Denmark and Greenland, US President Donald Trump has continued to press his desire to take ownership of Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory that is strategically important and rich in natural resources. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that any attempt by the United States to take over Greenland would effectively spell the end of NATO, while opinion within Greenland itself has made it clear that its people do not wish to become part of the United States. Despite these objections, Trump said in an interview with The New York Times on Thursday that he believes ownership of Greenland is essential, arguing that “ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”
Trump has never hidden his interest in Greenland and has repeatedly refused to rule out the use of military force to gain control of the island. He has insisted on multiple occasions that the United States must take possession of Greenland, and on Friday he intensified his language, suggesting that if diplomatic efforts fail, more aggressive measures could follow. Speaking to reporters, Trump said he would prefer to reach an agreement peacefully but warned that if that proved impossible, the United States would pursue its objectives by other means. At the same time, he attempted to soften his remarks by expressing admiration for Denmark and saying that its leaders had treated him well.
These comments came as senior diplomats from Greenland and Denmark met with White House officials on Thursday, reiterating that Greenland is not for sale and expressing growing concern about Washington’s intentions. Officials from Denmark, Greenland, and the United States are scheduled to meet again next week as the White House continues to push for control over the island. Trump reinforced his stance on Friday by saying he intended to take action on Greenland regardless of whether its leaders agreed, once again repeating that if matters could not be resolved “the easy way,” they would be resolved “the hard way,” without explaining what that might involve.
Trump’s renewed insistence comes despite Frederiksen’s stark warning that an American takeover would fracture NATO and despite clear resistance from Greenlanders themselves. In his interview with The New York Times, Trump doubled down on his reasoning, saying that formal agreements were insufficient and that true strategic advantage could only come through outright ownership.
According to reporting by the Associated Press, the United States faces a range of options and obstacles if it were to seriously pursue control over Greenland. Trump and his advisers have framed the issue in terms of national security and economic opportunity, particularly access to minerals and strategic positioning in the Arctic. However, experts say the sudden focus on Greenland is also the result of long-term neglect of the Arctic by successive US administrations. Imran Bayoumi of the Atlantic Council noted that Washington is now realizing the need to strengthen its Arctic presence but lacks a coherent strategy or long-term vision for doing so.
Any attempt to seize Greenland by force would likely trigger a major crisis within NATO, potentially threatening the alliance’s very existence. Although Greenland is the world’s largest island, it has a small population of roughly 57,000 people and no independent military, relying instead on Denmark for defense. While Denmark’s armed forces are far smaller than those of the United States, it remains unclear how other NATO members would respond if the US used military force against a fellow alliance member. Frederiksen has stated bluntly that if the United States were to attack another NATO country, the alliance would effectively cease to function.
Trump has justified his position by claiming Greenland is necessary for American security, citing alleged threats from Russian and Chinese vessels operating in the region. Arctic experts, however, dispute this narrative. While Russian submarines are known to operate throughout the Arctic, there is no significant surface presence, and although China sends research vessels to the Central Arctic Ocean and has conducted joint exercises with Russia, these activities have largely taken place closer to Alaska rather than Greenland. Bayoumi also expressed skepticism that Trump would resort to force, noting that such an action would be deeply unpopular among both Democrats and Republicans and would severely damage US relationships with allies around the world.
Under existing arrangements, the United States already enjoys extensive access to Greenland through a 1951 defense agreement. Denmark and Greenland have indicated they would be willing to accommodate an expanded American military presence if necessary. For that reason, experts argue that undermining NATO to gain control of territory the US already has access to makes little strategic sense.
Trump’s administration has also explored non-military options. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly told lawmakers that the administration ultimately hopes to purchase Greenland rather than seize it by force, though Danish and Greenlandic officials have consistently said the island is not for sale. It remains unclear how such a purchase would work, how much it would cost, or whether Denmark or Greenland would even be legally able to sell it.
Other alternatives include expanding US influence through diplomacy and cooperation. One possibility would be granting Washington veto power over Greenland’s security decisions, similar to arrangements the US has with certain Pacific island nations under Compacts of Free Association. These agreements allow the US to operate military bases and control security matters in exchange for protection and substantial financial assistance. However, analysts question whether such arrangements would significantly enhance US security beyond what is already possible under existing agreements, given that the US already operates the Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland and can deploy additional forces if needed.
Greenlandic leaders have emphasized that while many residents want greater autonomy and eventual independence, they do not want to become part of the United States. Experts believe attempts to influence public opinion in Greenland in favor of joining the US would likely fail, given the island’s small, close-knit population and linguistic barriers. Denmark has previously raised concerns about covert foreign influence efforts, with reports suggesting individuals linked to Trump attempted such operations in Greenland.
Even if the United States were somehow able to take control of Greenland, experts warn it would come at a significant financial cost. Greenlanders currently hold Danish citizenship and benefit from Denmark’s extensive welfare system, including universal health care and free education. Replicating those benefits would require the US to build a welfare structure that Trump has historically opposed for American citizens themselves.
Ultimately, analysts believe the dispute over Greenland is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. The US military presence on the island has already declined dramatically since World War II, and while Denmark may hope to update defense agreements to formalize cooperation, Trump’s repeated focus on Greenland serves a political purpose. Experts suggest that whenever the US president wants to shift attention away from domestic issues, invoking Greenland is an easy way to dominate headlines and reignite the controversy.
