Trump Renews Push to Buy Greenland, Forcing Allies to Confront an Uncomfortable Question
Donald Trump has revived his effort to acquire Greenland, and this time he is not presenting it as a curiosity. He is treating it as a strategic necessity, forcing Denmark, NATO and the wider international community to confront a question they would rather avoid: how secure are borders inside the alliance when power decides they are inconvenient.
Speaking in recent days, Trump has again argued that Greenland should belong to the United States, framing the island as vital to American security. According to Reuters, he has refused to rule out the use of force, while linking the issue to wider pressure on Europe, including trade and defence spending. What once sounded implausible has been recast as leverage.
The reaction from Denmark was immediate and firm. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said Greenland is not for sale and that sovereignty is not negotiable, while signalling openness to deeper cooperation on security and investment. European leaders closed ranks. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Denmark and Greenland are non negotiable and confirmed that the EU is working on an Arctic security and investment package.
The speed and clarity of the response reflects more than irritation. It reflects concern that Trump is normalising a line of argument that allies have spent decades trying to bury: that territory can be re discussed if the strategic case is strong enough.
Public reaction has reinforced that unease. Reuters reported protests in Copenhagen and Nuuk, with demonstrators rejecting the idea that Greenland could be treated as a bargaining chip. The message from the streets has mirrored the message from governments: this is not a negotiation.
Yet Greenland’s strategic value is real, and no one is pretending otherwise. The United States already operates a major military installation on the island at Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base, a cornerstone of missile warning and space surveillance. In practical terms, Greenland is a forward position for tracking threats that cross the Arctic, a role that has only grown as Russia modernises its strategic forces.
Geography compounds that importance. Greenland sits astride the Greenland Iceland UK gap, long treated by NATO planners as a critical corridor for monitoring Russian naval movement between the Arctic and the North Atlantic. In an era where undersea cables, seabed infrastructure and maritime chokepoints are openly discussed as targets, Greenland’s surrounding waters are part of the alliance’s defensive depth.
There is also the question of resources. Policy analysts and geological surveys have highlighted Greenland’s potential reserves of rare earth elements and other critical minerals. Western governments have spent years trying to reduce dependence on Chinese controlled supply chains. Greenland therefore represents not just territory, but optionality.
None of that requires ownership. Basing rights, infrastructure investment and mineral partnerships can all be negotiated within existing sovereignty. That is what makes Trump’s framing so disruptive. By presenting acquisition as the objective, he turns cooperation into coercion and forces allies to defend principles they assumed were settled.
NATO finds itself in an awkward position. The alliance is designed to deter external threats, not to referee internal disputes over territory. Yet the issue cuts directly into NATO’s core assumption that borders between allies are fixed. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has referenced Greenlandic statements about wanting their security handled within NATO, a careful way of acknowledging the tension without escalating it.
Denmark has also moved to reinforce its presence. Al Jazeera reported that Copenhagen is sending additional troops to Greenland amid rising tension with Washington. The deployment is modest, but the signal is not. Denmark is demonstrating responsibility and resolve precisely because it fears the appearance of weakness would invite further pressure.
For Greenland itself, the dispute is narrowing political space. The island has its own debates about independence, development and environmental protection. Trump’s intervention drags those questions into a geopolitical spotlight, reducing Greenland from actor to terrain. Either it aligns more closely with Washington on Washington’s terms, or it becomes the object over which allies argue.
This is not the first time Trump has raised the idea. In 2019, his administration confirmed that he had discussed buying Greenland, a proposal rejected by both Denmark and Greenland and widely dismissed. What has changed is the environment. Russia’s war in Ukraine has hardened defence planning across Europe. China’s Arctic ambitions are now routine in strategic documents. The Arctic is no longer treated as peripheral.
That shift makes Greenland easier to explain as a strategic prize. It also makes acquisition rhetoric more dangerous. It introduces uncertainty where stability is the currency of deterrence.
There is a quieter path available. The United States could deepen its military posture, invest in infrastructure, support Greenland’s economy and secure access to critical minerals through partnership rather than ownership. That would achieve the stated objectives without testing alliance cohesion.
But partnership does not generate headlines. Ownership does.
If this episode leaves a lasting mark, it will not be because Greenland changed hands. It will be because allies were forced to restate, publicly and repeatedly, that sovereignty is not conditional even when strategy makes the temptation strong.
Fidelis News is independent and reader-supported.
Our reporting is free to read, but not free to produce.
Reader support helps us remain independent and publish in-depth journalism.
Support our work via Buy Me a Coffee.
