The White House weighs how to acquire Greenland

DONALD TRUMP’S appetite in the western hemisphere appears insatiable. Just a day after snatching Nicolás Maduro, Venezuela’s strongman leader, Mr Trump set his sights on his next target: Greenland. “We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security,” the president told reporters aboard Air Force One on January 4th. His allies were quick to amplify the message. Stephen Miller, an influential adviser, argued that American control of Greenland was necessary in order to secure the Arctic and defend NATO’s interests. Forget international law, he growled: “We live in a world…that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power.”

Greenland and Denmark, and much of Europe, are in shock. A year ago, Mr Trump’s threats against the self-governing Arctic territory of 57,000 people, which is part of Denmark, elicited mostly derision and distaste among European leaders. This time it is different. “Enough is enough,” responded Jens-Frederik Nielsen, Greenland’s prime minister. “No more pressure. No more innuendo. No more fantasies about annexation.” Mette Frederiksen, Denmark’s prime minister, implored Mr Trump to drop the threats, adding that they “should be taken seriously”. Once a leading candidate to be NATO’s secretary-general, Ms Frederiksen sombrely posited that any American move to seize Greenland would spell the end of the alliance.

In an extraordinary joint statement on January 6th, six European leaders reaffirmed their support for Greenlandic and Danish sovereignty and for the principles of the UN Charter. But behind this display of unity lurked panic. The White House, for its part, paid little heed. Within hours it put out its own statement, saying the president and his advisers were now considering a “range of options” to acquire Greenland, including through military force. Reeling from the spectacle of Mr Trump’s triumph in Venezuela, Danish officials are increasingly fearful that he may simply, on a whim, declare Greenland part of the United States. Europe, lacking much military muscle or will, would struggle to resist.

As ever with Mr Trump, it is hard to determine just how serious his intentions are. For over a year he has offered a hotch-potch of reasons as to why he covets the Arctic territory: access to its resources; achieving prosperity for Greenlanders; enhancing America’s national security. Recent pronouncements have the distinct tenor of America’s 19th-century Monroe Doctrine, which sought to exclude foreign powers from the western hemisphere. “It’s so strategic…Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place,” he said. More recently Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, has told American lawmakers that Mr Trump hopes to buy Greenland, portraying the president’s bellicose rhetoric as a negotiating tactic.

An outright annexation is still unlikely. But Mr Trump’s interest is serious: he seems intent on bolstering America’s sway over the Arctic island and changing its status before his presidential term is up. For now, his administration’s strategy appears to be two-pronged. First, it aims to cultivate elements within Greenland’s independence movement and to deepen the movement’s divisions with Denmark. Second, it seems to be trying to strike a deal of sorts with the Arctic islanders, perhaps even bypassing Denmark entirely.

Start with independence. Though most Greenlanders favour it, and the abuses by Denmark’s past colonial administrations are still a neuralgic issue, they do not want to become Americans either. That has not stopped American officials from fomenting divisions between Greenland and Denmark. During a visit in March 2025 J.D. Vance, the vice-president, criticised Denmark for supposedly failing Greenlanders. He then appeared to back independence, saying that the United States would “have conversations with the people of Greenland from there”. In December Mr Trump appointed Jeff Landry, the Republican governor of Louisiana and a foreign-policy novice, as special envoy to Greenland. The move implied, at least to some, that the United States intended to treat Greenland as a separate entity from Denmark.

The CIA and the National Security Agency have reportedly stepped up surveillance of Greenland’s independence movement, and have been tasked with identifying locals sympathetic to the United States. The Danish government summoned American diplomats twice last year over reports of spying and running a covert influence campaign in Greenland. Denmark’s military-intelligence service raised concerns about the United States in its annual threat assessment last December.

At the same time, there is increasing chatter that the Trump administration is working on a deal to present to Greenland. Mr Trump has repeatedly compared the situation to a large real-estate deal, one he says would bring great riches to Greenlanders. American officials have discussed offering a so-called Compact of Free Association (COFA) to the island, an agreement it has historically extended to small nations in the Pacific. COFAs allow American armed forces to operate freely in signatory countries, with the added sweetener of duty-free trade. American officials have reportedly sought to engage in direct talks with the Greenland government, but have so far been rebuffed.

Danish officials retort that Greenland already hosts an American military base, which gives Uncle Sam wide latitude over how it operates there. There are no explicit limits on the number of troops the United States can deploy to Greenland under the terms of its treaty with Denmark, though any significant change would probably require the consent of Denmark, which it might anyway be likely to get. Besides, Mr Trump’s claims that Denmark has left Greenland exposed to Russian and Chinese predations ignore America’s own underinvestment over recent decades. Its armed forces once stationed around 10,000 soldiers across 17 bases in Greenland during the cold war. Now it has fewer than 200 troops in the country, and a single missile-defence base still there.

In any case, America’s repeated threats to take over Greenland are yet more evidence of Trumpland’s heartfelt loathing of Europe. In European capitals, the spat has raised questions that verge on the surreal. On January 5th Germany’s foreign minister affirmed that, come what may, Greenland would come under NATO’s Article 5 security guarantee—only this time it would be against American predations. Last year France was considering sending troops to Greenland. Though no match against the United States, they could act as a tripwire to raise the political costs of intervention. As otherworldly as those thoughts may sound, European officials are giving them due consideration.

Ever since Mr Trump first mused about grabbing Greenland, Danish officials have been baffled by his logic. All of America’s security and economic needs on the island, they insist, could be achieved through existing treaty arrangements and collaboration. But those arguments have made little impression on Mr Trump. Danish officials admit that this leads them to a final, more frightening conclusion: only total American control will be enough to quench the president’s appetite. ■