Just days after removing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power in a controversial move that shocked much of the world, US President Donald Trump has once again turned his attention to Greenland, reigniting one of the most sensitive geopolitical disputes between Washington and its Nato allies.
Speaking on Sunday, Trump said the United States needed Greenland “very badly,” a remark that immediately escalated tensions with Denmark and Greenland, both of which firmly rejected any notion of annexation or takeover. The renewed rhetoric has revived fears of a serious rupture within Nato and raised questions about Washington’s long-term intentions in the rapidly warming Arctic.
Greenland, the world’s largest island, is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. While it has its own parliament and government, Denmark retains control over its foreign policy and defence. Trump’s remarks were swiftly condemned by leaders in Nuuk and Copenhagen, as well as by European officials, who reiterated that “Greenland belongs to its people.”
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen delivered one of the strongest responses yet, warning that any US attack on a Nato ally would spell the end of the alliance itself. “If the United States decides to militarily attack another Nato country, then everything would stop,” she told Danish broadcaster TV2. “That includes Nato and therefore post-second world war security.”
Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen was equally blunt, urging Trump to abandon what he called “fantasies about annexation.” “Threats, pressure and talk of annexation have no place between friends,” Nielsen said. “Enough is enough.”
Despite the strong pushback, the Trump administration appears undeterred. Stephen Miller, one of the president’s closest aides, has said the White House remains determined to acquire Greenland and believes it can do so without resorting to military force — a statement that has only heightened anxiety in European capitals.
Trump’s fixation with Greenland is not new, but the rationale behind it has evolved. During his first term in 2019, he openly explored the idea of buying Greenland, framing it as a straightforward commercial transaction. At the time, he described the proposal as “essentially a large real estate deal.”
Earlier this year, as president-elect, Trump argued that US control of Greenland was necessary for “economic security.” In recent days, however, his justification has shifted more sharply toward defence, with Trump insisting Greenland is vital “from the standpoint of national security,” even if that stance risks undermining Nato unity.
Strategically located between North America and Russia, Greenland occupies a central position in Arctic defence architecture. As climate change accelerates, melting ice is transforming the region into a new geopolitical frontier — one where military access, shipping lanes and natural resources are increasingly contested.
The United States already maintains a significant military presence on the island. The Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base, has operated since the Cold War and plays a critical role in Washington’s ballistic missile early warning system. US officials argue that expanding influence over Greenland would further strengthen America’s ability to counter Russian and Chinese activities in the Arctic.
Beyond military considerations, Greenland’s vast natural wealth has made it a magnet for global powers. The island holds significant reserves of oil and gas, although Greenland’s government halted new oil exploration licences in 2021 due to environmental concerns. More importantly, Greenland is believed to possess large deposits of critical minerals such as lithium, cobalt, nickel and copper — materials essential for batteries, renewable energy technologies and electric vehicles.
These resources are of particular interest to Washington as it seeks to reduce reliance on China, which currently dominates global rare earth production and has repeatedly signalled its willingness to restrict exports of key minerals. US strategists argue that gaining control over Greenland’s mineral wealth would help secure supply chains while limiting Beijing’s influence.
The Arctic is also becoming a major shipping corridor. As sea ice retreats, new maritime routes are opening that could dramatically shorten travel times between western Europe and east Asia, offering an alternative to congested passages such as the Suez Canal. In November, China and Russia announced plans to collaborate on developing Arctic shipping routes, a move that has further alarmed US policymakers.
Greenland’s history adds further layers of complexity to the current crisis. Inuit peoples are believed to have lived on the island since around 2,500BC. Norse settlers arrived in the first millennium AD, establishing communities that lasted several centuries before disappearing.
Modern colonisation began in 1721 when Danish-Norwegian missionary Hans Egede arrived, marking the start of centuries of Danish rule. During the second world war, after Denmark was occupied by Nazi Germany, the United States took control of Greenland for strategic reasons, returning it to Denmark in 1945.
Greenland formally became part of the Kingdom of Denmark in 1953. Home rule was introduced in 1979, followed by expanded self-government in 2009, granting Greenland authority over most domestic affairs. However, Denmark continues to control defence and foreign policy, and this arrangement has become increasingly contentious.
Relations between Denmark and Greenland have deteriorated sharply in recent years, driven by historical grievances and unresolved injustices. One of the most painful issues is the forced contraceptive, or IUD, scandal of the 1960s and 1970s, in which thousands of Greenlandic women and girls were fitted with contraceptive devices without their knowledge or consent. The policy, aimed at limiting Greenland’s population growth, has been described by former Greenlandic leaders as a form of genocide.
There has also been widespread anger over the separation of Greenlandic children from their families after Danish authorities deemed parents unfit using controversial “parenting competency” tests. Protests have taken place both in Nuuk and Copenhagen, further straining ties.
In response, Frederiksen’s government has moved to repair relations. Denmark has banned the use of the disputed parenting tests on Greenlandic people and, in September, formally apologised for the IUD scandal. In December, victims won a landmark legal case securing compensation from the Danish state.
Support for full Greenlandic independence has been steadily growing, though the path forward remains uncertain. Under a 2009 agreement with Denmark, Greenland must hold and win a referendum before declaring independence — a step many believe is still years away due to economic dependence on Danish subsidies.
Amid Trump’s renewed pressure, Greenland formed a four-party coalition government in March in a show of national unity. The coalition agreement opened with a clear declaration: “Greenland belongs to us.” The pro-independence Naleraq party, which is considered the most sympathetic to Trump and the US, finished second in the election but now sits in opposition.
Symbolic gestures have also underscored solidarity. In his New Year’s speech, Denmark’s King Frederik praised the “strength and pride” of Greenlanders during what he described as a “turbulent time.” The previous year, he unveiled a redesigned royal coat of arms giving greater prominence to Greenland and the Faroe Islands — a move widely interpreted as a subtle rebuke to Trump’s ambitions.
As Trump presses ahead with his Greenland rhetoric, the dispute is emerging as a defining test for Nato cohesion and the post-war security order. European leaders have closed ranks behind Denmark, warning that any attempt to coerce or seize territory would undermine the alliance’s very foundations.
For Greenland, the moment has sharpened questions of sovereignty, identity and future direction. For Denmark, it has reinforced the need to address historical wrongs while defending territorial integrity. And for the United States, Trump’s Greenland gambit risks transforming a strategic interest into a geopolitical crisis — one with consequences far beyond the Arctic.
