COPENHAGEN — President Donald Trump has made it clear that the United States needs to 'get' Greenland, emphasizing its strategic importance for national and international security. He asserts that Denmark has not adequately protected the island from potential threats posed by China and Russia.
Trump's remarks underline a growing interest in Greenland, which has long been recognized for its critical natural resources, a fact recently acknowledged by Vice President JD Vance. Vance praised the island’s 'incredible natural resources,' including essential metals required for modern technological products such as electric vehicles, smartphones, and wind turbines.
As of March 2025, Greenland's population stands at 57,751, and the newly elected government appears poised to pursue a deliberate, cautious approach regarding independence from Denmark. The island, which is roughly three times the size of Texas, is primarily ice-covered, with about 80 percent of its landmass dominated by glaciers.
Denmark’s recent commitment of $2 billion to enhance its defensive capabilities reflects growing concerns over Arctic stability. This commitment exceeds 3 percent of the country’s GDP and includes plans to upgrade military assets in the region, such as reinforcing the Northeast Greenland National Park with additional dogsled patrol teams.
The geopolitical interest in the Arctic has intensified, fueled by the increasing accessibility of sea routes due to climate change. Recently, Russian border service and Chinese coast guard vessels were observed participating in joint exercises near Alaska, raising alarms about the strategic maneuvers in the Arctic.
Trump's push for Greenland’s inclusion as a U.S. territory, once dismissed as a joke, has resurfaced with alarming seriousness. During his presidency, he expressed intentions to buy the territory from Denmark, revisiting its significance after taking office. The president previously noted the presence of foreign warships, suggesting that the U.S. could take control of Greenland if necessary, prompting immediate clarifications from the White House and Pentagon who distanced themselves from the notion of military invasion.
In a recent address to Congress, Trump reiterated the critical nature of Greenland for 'national security and even international security,' claiming, 'And I think we’re going to get it one way or the other.' His statement was met with applause and laughter from Republican lawmakers, reflecting the absurdity perceived in Trump’s assertions about Greenland’s defensibility.
Greenland’s unique geography, dominated by its icy terrain and sparse population, raises questions about the viability of military control or annexation. This landscape has historically complicated any foreign military action; storage and transportation logistics require robust infrastructure that currently does not exist.
Many military planners jokingly noted that any past attempted invasions of Greenland—whether by Nazi Germany or the Soviets—would quickly transition into search-and-rescue missions. This was due to its harsh conditions where sustaining human life without extensive resources became practically impossible.
Nonetheless, as climate changes, the Arctic is melting, unveiling new possibilities. The ice receding brings fresh hope and concern regarding shipping routes that could bypass the traditionally longer paths like those around the Panama or Suez canals.
Under Trump's insistence, Denmark has been urged to bolster its military presence in Greenland, especially as the U.S. military assets on the island have deteriorated over years. This includes a drawdown from 10,000 troops stationed there to a mere 200, primarily focused on maintaining outdated infrastructure at Pituffik Space Base, the last remaining U.S. facility on the island.
Danish officials have acknowledged their past negligence in reinforcing military assets in the Arctic, as they prioritized other issues. The changing geopolitical landscape has spurred Denmark to redefine its defense priorities. Recognizing the increasing assertiveness of both Russian and Chinese forces in Arctic territory compels Denmark to act swiftly.
Recent developments have pushed the Danish Defense Intelligence Service to outline the Arctic as a vital area for Russia, fearing aggressive maneuvers that carry a risk of escalation in the region. Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen underscored the need to increase their presence, stating, 'We have not invested enough in the Arctic for many years.'
The option of changing the military landscape around Greenland now seems more urgent. Denmark is set to replace older naval vessels with three new warships and invest in surveillance drones, while also committing to enhancing airport capabilities for F-35 fighter jets.
The responses from Denmark reflect a palpable anxiety toward Trump's remarks. Danish PM Mette Frederiksen responded firmly, stating, 'We have fought side by side with the Americans for many, many decades,' aiming to reaffirm Denmark’s status as a key NATO ally despite Trump's critical tone.
Transatlantic relations have been tested further with Trump’s comments about Danish efforts in the Arctic, which he labeled insufficient in light of escalating security needs. His dismissive remarks regarding the Danish military initiatives have left officials attempting to navigate a complex alliance dynamic.
Complicating this scenario remains the ambiguity surrounding international waters and navigable routes emerging from climate change, where implications of newfound access for global powers could shift the balance of influence in the Arctic.
Under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which asserts that an attack on one ally is an attack on all, the U.S. is firmly committed to protect Greenland—a point of contention during Trump’s presidential term. However, as Kristian Soby Kristensen from the Royal Danish Defense College observes, 'The United States can basically do what it wants in Greenland,' illustrating the level of operational freedom the U.S. military currently enjoys on Greenlandic territory.
As Arctic geopolitics intensifies, the questions surrounding Greenland's future remain. Will it shift to become a focal point of contention for superpowers, or will cooperative international measures prevail? The stakes have undeniably risen as the world watches how these dynamics unfold.