Why Does Trump Want Greenland?

Julian Herbst

London, UK

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

“We have to have Greenland. It’s not a question of, ‘Do you think we can do without it?’ We can’t.” - Donald Trump

The words of American President Donald Trump, who has not ruled out use of military force to take the semi-autonomous Danish territory. These were said in Washington while Vice President JD Vance was off visiting Pituffik military base in Greenland. Despite planning to stay longer and visit Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, the Vice President’s trip lasted only a few hours, with Vance remarking that nobody told him it was “cold as shit.”. The vice-president’s visit, which was not invited by the freshly elected government of Greenland, followed what was ostensibly a “holiday” by Eric Trump to the island, in which he enticed people off the street to wear MAGA hats and listen to an address by his father by offering them lunch at a hotel, according to the chief executive of the establishment. American interest in Greenland is being projected increasingly and aggressively, yet why is an 80% ice-covered island of only 57,000 people on the forefront of President Trump’s mind? 

The 47th President’s strategy overseas is encapsulated in his “America First” slogan. The US’s main interest in Greenland is in the national security obtained by greater control over the North American continent. So, how has “America First” been expressed in this geographical sphere so far? Has much of it been merely expressed, in the true rhetorical sense of the word, without much happening? The Gulf of Mexico was renamed the “Gulf of America” by Trump, and even more ambitiously Canada has been dubbed the 51st state. What perhaps differentiates his administration as the 47th President from his previous administration as the 45th is that a significant proportion of the rhetoric has been backed up by action: Canada and Mexico are both engaged in trade wars with the US sparked by a 25% tariff announced on the 4th of March on all goods imported from Mexico and Canada (though many exemptions have been made). In addition to tariffs, Trump has demanded that both countries shoulder more of the work regarding immigration and defence, claiming that it is only the US military which has guaranteed the security of North America for too long. Trump seems to want Canada, Mexico, and Greenland to either fully acknowledge their being under an US security umbrella and therefore forfeit their sovereignty to some degree (this is reminiscent of the 19th century Monroe Doctrine which opposed any foreign interference in the Americas which was often seen to belong to the US’s sphere of influence), or to step up and provide more for the US in the forms of increased defence spending and reduced immigration. 

Historical background:

As Trump’s outlook on national security is conceivably not completely novel, it is hardly surprising that the question of an American acquisition of Greenland is not either. Fresh from the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867, William Seward, the Secretary of State, investigated the possibility of a deal to purchase Greenland, and, in another parallel to the present day, thought it might encourage Canada to hopefully join the US. In 1910, the US ambassador to Denmark Maurice Egan proposed another acquisition, yet this never reached any formal negotiation stage. In 1916, in a revocation of past ambitions, as part of the deal by which the US acquired the Danish West Indies, which are now the US Virgin Islands, the US was compelled to recognise the Danish claim to Greenland. World War II once again changed the US perspective towards North American security. In fact, there was a contingency plan called “Rainbow 4” drawn up which outlined the American seizure of all Dutch, Danish, and French possessions in the Western Hemisphere in the case of a siege of North America by a hostile united Europe. 

Thankfully, this never needed to materialise; however, due to the Nazi occupation of Denmark, Germany had a strong claim to Greenland and tried to use the island during the North Atlantic weather war. In an application of the Monroe Doctrine, the US Coast Guard invaded Greenland in 1941, and it became a de facto protectorate of the US. In the following years the US built up much infrastructure (both civilian and military). After the war, while Denmark expected it to, the US refused to withdraw its personnel, and so, after a relative stalemate, in 1951 (as both countries were not yet members of NATO) an agreement was made between the two countries which allowed the US to keep its military bases in Greenland, and to establish new bases or "defence areas" if deemed necessary by NATO. To this day, the American military can freely use and move between these defence areas but cannot infringe upon Danish sovereignty in Greenland. In the Cold War, bases, numbering around 50, were maintained, and the island fell under the North American Aerospace Defence Command which in practice meant multiple radar installations were established in Greenland. Once the USSR fell, however, American presence drastically decreased, and today only Pituffik base remains, staffed by a few hundred servicepeople. The lack of care for Greenland after the resolution of the Cold War remains one reason Greenlanders feel wary about trusting the US with their future security.

Donald Trump’s Arctic ambitions:

American noises about Greenland were only heard again in the first Trump administration, and shocked many uninformed by the long history of American interest in Greenland. He proposed a potential deal to acquire Greenland in 2019, yet ultimately he took no action to follow through on the idea, and the Danish government shut it down as “absurd.”

 The second Trump Administration seems more serious about Greenland. In expressing his desire to obtain the island, Trump has not suggested that a purchase is the only method of acquisition, as he has not ruled out forms of economic or military coercion, although JD Vance stated on his trip that the need for military force should not arise. The visits of the vice-president and Eric Trump are also acts which symbolise serious interest in Greenland. Additionally, the shock value of the proposition has decreased, as Trump has pitched even Canada as a potential addition to the US, making the Greenland proposal seem more realistic.

There are three factors which are potentially driving renewed American curiosity towards Greenland:

1.   The accession of Greenland would be a coup for President Trump’s legacy. Greenland is the largest island in the world - its area is over three times larger than that of Texas - and Trump would forever be known as the president to have enlarged the US so that it overtook Canada and became the 2nd largest country by landmass. Equally, a large part of American identity in the past lay in Manifest Destiny: the idea that the US was clearly preordained to spread and with that spread American values. This sentiment may be derived from settlers on the East Coast who expanded south and west before and after the establishment of the US, until it met its current borders. Expansion into other areas of North America would not only bring much glory to Trump, but perhaps (though admittedly this is tenuous) fulfil a small part of the American psyche.

2.   Greenland holds incredibly natural resources. The two most valuable are energy sources and minerals. Greenland contains 43/50 of the minerals deemed critical to US national security. Data from the US Geological Survey shows that the island has 1.5 million tonnes of rare earth reserves; this is an enormous amount when compared to the US’s known reserves of 1.8 million tonnes. While some companies are already operating, these resources are largely unexploited due to quite stringent regulation under the former left-leaning government, volatile weather, and a lack of infrastructure and skilled labour. Control of these resources would be extremely helpful in helping the US wean itself off the rare earth supply chains of China, which was not only blessed with the largest reserves globally but also oversees 60% of global production. In addition to minerals, Greenland and the waters in proximity to it contain vast energy reserves. The Arctic is estimated by the US Geological Survey to hold 13% and 30% of the world’s undiscovered oil and natural gas resources respectively. This number is an estimate however, as vast tracts of land remain unexplored and some oil and gas may not have been discovered yet. Getting nearer to some of these by acquiring Greenland would make it easier territorially for the US to grab some reserves in the Arctic. All these opportunities will become more accessible in the near future as, regrettably, climate change brings about warming in the Arctic circle occurring three times as fast as the global average, leading to rapid ice thaw.

3.   As real estate developer Trump might know, it’s all about location. Other than getting nearer to Arctic resources, Greenland’s location is crucial to, as Trump said in an address, “national and international security”. National security, firstly, because the island houses the northernmost US military base and is a useful area for radar and missile system installations due to the proximity to Russia. Secondly, because it is one end of the GIUK gap, a naval choke point between Greenland, Iceland, and the UK, which Russian submarines and strikes would need to penetrate to access the north Atlantic. International security also hinges, or will hinge, on Greenland because it neighbours two of the three Arctic shipping routes, namely the Transpolar Route which cuts right through the North Pole and the Northwest Passage along Canada’s coast. As ice caps continue to melt, these passages will become viable and shorter routes compared to routes through the Suez for shipping from East to West and vice-versa. China has even expressed aims to establish a “Polar Silk Road”. While currently shipping rarely passes through the Arctic, authority in the area most definitely lies in Russian hands, as they possess by far the most operational icebreakers. Control over Greenland and the waters around it would therefore allow the US to supervise and gain a foothold in what will become a crucial area for international trade.

The situation in Greenland:

Greenland could become independent any time; if a referendum shows a majority for independence the Danish government is by law forced to recognise the decision. Greenlanders overwhelmingly (84%) want full independence at some point in time. That shows itself in all major parties being for it. The main differentiating factor is how rapidly they want separation. The problem lies in the fact that other than a domestic fishing industry, Greenland is overwhelmingly dependent on Denmark’s support which takes its form for the most part in an annual block grant of around $511 billion a year, accounting for about 16% of the island’s GDP. Arguably this is because Greenlanders have so far wished to preserve their valuable natural resources, yet it is doubtful whether they can do without a powerful helping hand. 

Will an acquisition of Greenland by the US happen?

A full absorption of Greenland as an additional state in the US seems very unlikely. Greenlanders seem to harbour more resentment against not having full sovereignty rather than being a part of Denmark in particular: a recent poll has shown that 85% of Greenlanders don’t want to join the US. Denmark, it almost goes without saying, is also strongly against relinquishing Greenland, and seems even more alienated after comments by JD Vance that they are a “bad ally”. Unilateral action, therefore, seems the only way the US could absorb Greenland, and this would have to be done through an invasion, which would not only face extraordinary backlash internationally and domestically, but would also carry the risk of potential retaliatory action due to mutual defence agreements within NATO and the EU. One legislative expression of the idea of a full absorption of Greenland can be found in the Red, White, and Blueland Act of 2025, proposing the renaming of Greenland thus once it becomes a new state, illustrating that the full realisation of Trump’s goal probably still lies in the realm of fantasy.

What will happen?

Trump’s true goal is unclear. Through the 1951 agreement with Denmark, the US can already quite freely take advantage of Greenland’s militarily strategic location if it so desires. Through its sheer economic might the US can also easily purchase contracts to mine and extract minerals and oil, in fact, a uranium contract recently went to an American company despite rumours that there had been a far higher offer made by a Chinese company. Although complete ownership of Greenland would allow for the slashing of some extra environmental protection regulation, oversight of any Chinese presence in Greenland, and pure territorial enlargement, the question remains how advantageous this is compared to status quo and whether an acquisition is worth the cost.

Two scenarios seem to present themselves. One, is JD Vance’s prediction: “what we think is going to happen is the Greenlanders are going to choose, through self-determination, to become independent of Denmark, and then we're going to have conversations with the people of Greenland from there.” While the vast majority do not want to become a part of the US, many Greenlanders, especially those who voted for Naleraq, the party which came 2nd in the recent election, favour accelerated independence and afterwards close cooperation with the US. The annual Danish block grant Greenland currently depends on is less than the  annual budget of El Paso. This could turn into a similar scenario to the Panama Canal, where control of the canal was sold to a consortium, led by American asset manager BlackRock, by Hong Kong conglomerate CK Hutchison after Marco Rubio visited Panama in February and told President Mulino to reduce Chinese influence over the canal or face consequences. Likewise, Trump could pressure an independent Greenland economically dependent on the US to sell important tracts of land to American companies and give the US military privileges on the island. Once again though, this is a very marginal improvement on the status quo for America’s national security.

The second scenario is that the political status quo remains, but Denmark enlarges its military presence in the Arctic. A point the Trump administration has made for Greenland changing hands is that Denmark does not have the money or military prowess to protect Greenland. To combat this quite valid line of argument, Denmark has already allocated an extra $2 billion to Arctic defence, and will likely invest further, especially if Trump kicks up more of a fuss. As it is already happening, this is the most realistic scenario, and one that is very positive for the US, as it relieves the US of some of the burden of combatting Chinese and Russian power in the Arctic. 

The Arctic will, without doubt, in the next decade become an increasingly contested arena, as all the world’s major powers seek to exploit its potential opening up due to climate change. Two, Trump’s actual ambitions may be wholly unconcealed in his public statements or buried five chess moves beneath them. Never think you have understood President Trump’s motives or next steps; he remains as mercurial a statesman as ever.