President Donald Trump sent a warning to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ahead of Vice President JD Vance’s high-stakes meeting with Danish and Greenlandic officials.
“The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of national security,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post on Wednesday. He added that the acquisition was “vital for the Golden Dome that we are building.” The “Golden Dome” is a cutting-edge missile defense system meant to intercept threats targeting the American homeland, similar to the Iron Dome used in Israel.
“NATO should be leading the way for us to get it. IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! Militarily, without the vast power of the United States, much of which I built during my first term, and am now bringing to a new and even higher level, NATO would not be an effective force or deterrent — not even close! They know that, and so do I. NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the UNITED STATES. Anything less than that is unacceptable,” Trump added.
President Donald Trump and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte attend the start of a NATO leaders summit in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25, 2025. (Ludovic Marin/Pool via Reuters)
Trump and his administration’s push for the U.S. to acquire Greenland has caused tension with NATO allies who assert that the semiautonomous Danish territory should determine its own future.
The post comes ahead of Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s meeting with the Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers at the White House on Wednesday morning.
Vance and Rubio will be meeting with Denmark’s foreign minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and his Greenlandic counterpart Vivian Motzfeldt.
Houses in Nuuk, Greenland, Jan. 13, 2026.(Marko Djurica/Reuters)
In a follow-up post on Truth Social on Wednesday morning, Trump shared a report by Just The News stating that the Danish Defense Intelligence Service (DDIS) issued a warning regarding Russian and Chinese military ambitions toward and expansion around Greenland in a recent assessment.
“NATO: Tell Denmark to get them out of here, NOW! Two dogsleds won’t do it! Only the USA can!!!” Trump wrote. “Danish intel warned last year about Russian and Chinese military goals toward Greenland and Arctic.”
“In recent years, the United States has significantly increased its security policy focus on the Arctic, while Russia continues its military build-up, and China continues to develop its capacity to operate both submarines and surface vessels in the region,” DDIS reportedly said in its Intelligence Outlook 2025. The DDIS noted that, “Neither the war in Ukraine nor the increased US focus on Greenland and the Arctic has altered Russia’s long-term interests and objectives in the region.”
A “Make America Go Away” baseball cap, distributed for free by Danish artist Jens Martin Skibsted, is arranged in Sisimiut, Greenland, on March 30, 2025.(Juliette Pavy/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen told a news conference in Copenhagen on Tuesday that “if we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark. We choose NATO. We choose the Kingdom of Denmark. We choose the EU,” the AP reported.
Trump later responded to Nielsen, saying “I disagree with him. I don’t know who he is. I don’t know anything about him. But, that’s going to be a big problem for him,” according to the AP.
Vance’s office and the Embassy of Denmark in the U.S. did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s requests for comment.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Rachel Wolf is a breaking news writer for Fox News Digital and FOX Business.
Greenland‘s prime minister said “we choose Denmark” over the U.S., on the eve of Wednesday’s meeting between the foreign ministers of Greenland and Denmark, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other Trump administration officials.
“If we have to choose between the United States and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark,” Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said at a news conference Tuesday in Copenhagen. “We choose NATO. We choose the Kingdom of Denmark. We choose the EU.”
Nielsen appeared with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who said “there are many indications that the most challenging part is ahead of us,” according to AFP.
Vance, who visited Greenland last year, will be hosting Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers — along with Rubio — at the White House, a source familiar with the planning confirmed to CBS News.
President Trump has repeatedly said he wants to acquire Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark, citing national security reasons.
“If we don’t take Greenland, Russia or China will take Greenland, and I am not going to let that happen,” Mr. Trump said Sunday.
“I’d love to make a deal with them. It’s easier,” he added. “But one way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland.” Rubio has downplayed the possibility of military force to acquire Greenland.
But leaders of both Denmark and Greenland have stated Greenland is “not for sale,” which has led Trump officials to say that the administration is considering all options, including military force.
“One thing must be clear to everyone: Greenland does not want to be owned by the United States. Greenland does not want to be governed by the United States. Greenland does not want to be part of the United States,” Nielsen said Tuesday.
Denmark has been one of the U.S.’ staunchest NATO allies for more than 75 years. Frederiksen said of the U.S. there’s been “completely unacceptable pressure from our closest ally.”
Senate Democrats and a few Republicans have expressed opposition to military action against Greenland. Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia said Sunday on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan” that any military action in Greenland would be “disastrous.” He added that he believes “Congress will stop him, both Democrats and Republicans.”
Republican Sen. Rand Paul told “CBS Mornings” last week that he would “do everything to stop any kind of military takeover of Greenland.” But Paul did not object to purchasing Greenland, noting that the U.S. has acquired territory in the past.
The Constitution says only Congress can declare war, and the Senate last week advanced a war powers resolution to limit the Trump administration’s ability to conduct further strikes Venezuela. Five Republicans joined all the Democrats in advancing the resolution, indicating a lack of support for any military action in Greenland. Democratic Sen. Reuben Gallego said last week that he expected to introduce a measure “to block Trump from invading Greenland.”
A bipartisan group of House members introduced legislation on Monday to prevent military action against NATO members, according to Politico.
Rep. Don Bacon, one of the sponsors of the legislation, said last week that he thought any action in Greenland is wrong.
“These are our allies,” he continued. “You don’t treat your allies this way. I mean it’s embarrassing. And by the way, most Greenlanders want to be Greenland. They don’t want to be American. They want to be our allies, though, and it’s creating a lot of anger and hurt with our friends in Europe.”
President Trump has said repeatedly that he wants the United States to control Greenland, refusing to take military action off the table and declaring that he will make the semi-autonomous Danish territory part of the U.S. “one way or the other.”
Mr. Trump says the U.S. needs to control the vast, largely frozen island that sits mostly inside the Arctic Circle for security reasons, accusing China and Russia of trying to take it over instead.
Greenland’s own democratically elected leaders have rejected any U.S. takeover, with the island’s government calling it something they “cannot accept under any circumstance.”
There are a number of reasons why Greenland is of such intense interest to the Trump administration, including its natural resources — reserves of oil, natural gas and rare earth minerals. But the physical location of the island on the map — and the sea ice melting around its borders — is also of vital importance.
New routes around the globe
Melting Arctic sea ice has created more opportunity to use northern shipping routes — allowing logistics companies to save millions of dollars in fuel by taking much shorter paths between Asia and Western Europe and the United States. Northern routes were long only passable in warmer months.
Arctic sea routes
CBS News
There are a couple primary routes through the Arctic becoming more viable, the Northern Sea Route (NSR), which follows Russia’s roughly 15,000-mile northern border. That path doesn’t bring ships too close to Greenland, and Russia and China have agreed to develop the route together, and have been making greater use of it in recent years.
A Russian commercial vessel, aided by an icebreaker, first traversed the NSR in the winter in February 2021, proving it was possible.
The other route, called the Northwest Passage, comes much closer to Greenland’s coastal waters and is more likely the path the Trump administration is concerned with.
The other, longstanding way to get goods from ports in Russia or the manufacturing powerhouses of East Asia is to go south. But that course, through Egypt’s Suez Canal, is about 3,000 miles longer.
According to the Arctic Institute, compared to the Suez Canal route, the Northern Sea Route can save shippers as much as 50% in costs, considering fuel and other expenses, by reducing the distance from Japan to Europe, for instance, to only about 10 days compared to the roughly 22 it would take to sail around the southern tip of Africa and then through the Suez Canal.
A 2024 analysis by the Middlebury Institute of International Studies also said the northern route would shave about 10 days of a similar journey from Shanghai, China, to Rotterdam in the Netherlands.
As sea temperatures continue warming and winter ice cover shrinks, shipping traffic via the north is likely to increase, so control over that passage — and the long Greenlandic coastline that it skirts — will be of greater importance.
The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shared graphs in 2022 predicting the new routes that would become available to regular tankers around Greenland over the coming decades.
Graphics shared by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 2022 show the sea routes through the Arctic that are expected to become viable to regular vessels (in blue) and polar-class vessels (in red) around Greenland over the coming decades.
NOAA
NOAA’s modeling shows a dramatic increase in viable journeys for both polar-class vessels fortified to forge through sea ice, and normal open water-faring ships. The agency even predicts that by 2059, it will likely be possible for a polar-class vessel to sail the most direct route, right across the North Pole, as the formation of sea ice reduces further.
AHMEDABAD, India, Jan 12 (Reuters) – Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Monday he expects the United States to continue to protect Greenland together with Denmark but ongoing talks would determine the exact nature of the collaboration.
“We are in very detailed discussions with the Danish government and simply want to work together to improve the security situation for Greenland,” Merz told reporters in the Indian city of Ahmedabad.
“I expect the Americans to also participate in this,” he said, adding that talks over the next few days and weeks would show in what form that would happen.
(Reporting by Reinhard Becker and Maria MartinezWriting by Ludwig Burger; editing by Matthias Williams)
Trump administration officials are set to meet with Danish officials about Greenland on Wednesday, diplomatic sources tell CBS News.
The meeting, which has not been officially announced, comes after Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Congress last week that President Trump is interested in purchasing the Danish territory. The White House also said Tuesday officials are discussing a wide range of options for acquiring Greenland, including using the U.S. military to take it by force.
While Rubio had downplayed the threat of military force in his remarks to reporters, Mr. Trump doubled down on the possibility Friday, saying, “I would like to make a deal the easy way, but if we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way.”
Sen. Tim Kaine, who met with Danish officials last week, said on Sunday that he thinks Democrats and Republicans in Congress would unite to stop any military action aimed at taking Greenland. “We’re not going to do it the hard way, and we’re not going to do it the easy way,” he said on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.”
“Either we’re going to continue to work with Denmark as a sovereign nation that we’re allied with, and we’re not going to treat them as an adversary or as an enemy,” the Democrat said.
Mr. Trump told the New York Times in an interview published last week that ownership of Greenland, the world’s largest island, was important because “that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success.” Mr. Trump has repeatedly said he feels the U.S. needs to acquire Greenland for defense purposes.
The escalatory language by the president in recent weeks has further stressed already strained relations with European allies. Multiple European diplomats told CBS News that they increasingly understand that America’s commitment to the defense of Europe and NATO is no longer as ironclad as it has been over the past decades — or even the past few years of the war in Ukraine, during which the U.S. rallied European countries to unify against Russian aggression. One diplomat told CBS News that the Greenland situation is a potential breaking point.
Louisiana GOP Gov. Jeff Landry, who Mr. Trump appointed as special envoy to Greenland last month, wrote Sunday on X that “History matters. The U.S. defended Greenland’s sovereignty during WWII when Denmark couldn’t.”
“After the war, Denmark re-occupied it—side stepping and ignoring UN protocol. This should be about hospitality, not hostility,” Landry said.
In response, Denmark’s Ambassador to the U.S. Jesper Møller Sørensen said “facts matter too,” and pointed out Greenland “has been a part of the Kingdom of Denmark for centuries.” He also emphasized that last week, all five of Greenland’s parties in Parliament repeated they don’t want to become part of the U.S.
“We don’t want to be Americans, we don’t want to be Danes, we want to be Greenlanders,” Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen and four party leaders said in a statement Friday night.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said earlier this month that an American military move to seize control of Greenland would amount to the end of the NATO military alliance. Denmark is a NATO member, and NATO’s Article 5 states that if a NATO ally suffers an armed attack, all members will consider it an attack on them as well and do what they need to aid the attacked nation.
“This would be disastrous,” Kaine said on “Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan.” It wouldn’t just be the end of NATO, it would be America alone.”
Jan 11 (Reuters) – A group of European countries, led by Britain and Germany, is discussing plans to boost their military presence in Greenland to show U.S. President Donald Trump that the continent is serious about Arctic security, Bloomberg News reported on Sunday.
Germany will propose setting up a joint NATO mission to protect the Arctic region, the Bloomberg report added, citing people familiar with the plans.
Trump said on Friday that the U.S. needs to own Greenland to prevent Russia or China from occupying it in the future. He has repeatedly said that Russian and Chinese vessels are operating near Greenland, something Nordic countries have rejected.
“We don’t want to be Americans, we don’t want to be Danes, we want to be Greenlanders,” Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen and four party leaders said in a statement Friday night.
Mr. Trump reiterated on Friday that he would like to make a deal to acquire Greenland, a semi-autonomous region that’s part of NATO ally Denmark, “the easy way.” He said that if the U.S. doesn’t own it, then Russia or China will take it over, and the U.S. does not want them as neighbors. NATO allies and Greenland have disagreed with Mr. Trump’s assessment.
“If we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way,” Mr. Trump said, without explaining what that entailed. The White House stated that it is considering a range of options, including the use of military force, to acquire the island. U.S. Senator Rand Paul told CBS Mornings earlier this week that he “will do everything to stop any kind of military takeover of Greenland.”
Greenland’s party leaders reiterated that “Greenland’s future must be decided by the Greenlandic people.”
“As Greenlandic party leaders, we would like to emphasize once again our wish that the United States’ contempt for our country ends,” the statement said.
Officials from Denmark, Greenland and the U.S. met Thursday in Washington and will meet again next week to discuss the renewed push by the White House for control of the island.
Painted houses and residential apartment blocks in Nuuk, Greenland, on Monday, Nov. 3, 2025.
Juliette Pavy / Bloomberg via Getty Images
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that an American takeover of Greenland would mark the end of NATO.
The party leaders’ statement said that “the work on Greenland’s future takes place in dialogue with the Greenlandic people and is prepared on the basis of international laws.”
“No other country can interfere in this,” they said. “We must decide the future of our country ourselves, without pressure for quick decision, delay or interference from other countries.”
The statement was signed by Nielsen, Pele Broberg, Múte B. Egede, Aleqa Hammond and Aqqalu C. Jerimiassen.
Potter Pilu Chemnitz told CBS News partner BBC News that Greenlanders “are all very tired of the U.S. president” and “just want to be left alone.”
Eighty-five percent of Greenlanders say they oppose a takeover by the U.S., the BBC reported. Most also say they favor independence from Denmark, though the Nordic country provides subsidies, military support and more for the autonomous territory.
While Greenland is the largest island in the world, it has a population of around 57,000 and doesn’t have its own military. Defense is provided by Denmark, whose military is dwarfed by that of the U.S.
It’s unclear how the remaining NATO members would respond if the U.S. decided to forcibly take control of the island or if they would come to Denmark’s aid. Former Danish ambassador to NATO Michael Zilmer-Johns called Mr. Trump’s ambitions “an affront to an ally that has stood up with the U.S. in Afghanistan, in Iraq, all over the world.”
WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump wants to own Greenland. He has repeatedly said the United States must take control of the strategically located and mineral-rich island, which is a semiautonomous region that’s part of NATO ally Denmark.
Officials from Denmark, Greenland and the United States met Thursday in Washington and will meet again next week to discuss a renewed push by the White House, which is considering a range of options, including using military force, to acquire the island.
Trump said Friday he is going to do “something on Greenland, whether they like it or not.”
If it’s not done “the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way,” he said without elaborating what that could entail. In an interview Thursday, he told The New York Times that he wants to own Greenland because “ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that an American takeover of Greenland would mark the end of NATO, and Greenlanders say they don’t want to become part of the U.S.
This is a look at some of the ways the U.S. could take control of Greenland and the potential challenges.
Military action could alter global relations
Trump and his officials have indicated they want to control Greenland to enhance American security and explore business and mining deals. But Imran Bayoumi, an associate director at the Atlantic Council’s Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, said the sudden focus on Greenland is also the result of decades of neglect by several U.S. presidents towards Washington’s position in the Arctic.
The current fixation is partly down to “the realization we need to increase our presence in the Arctic, and we don’t yet have the right strategy or vision to do so,” he said.
If the U.S. took control of Greenland by force, it would plunge NATO into a crisis, possibly an existential one.
While Greenland is the largest island in the world, it has a population of around 57,000 and doesn’t have its own military. Defense is provided by Denmark, whose military is dwarfed by that of the U.S.
It’s unclear how the remaining members of NATO would respond if the U.S. decided to forcibly take control of the island or if they would come to Denmark’s aid.
“If the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops,” Frederiksen has said.
Trump said he needs control of the island to guarantee American security, citing the threat from Russian and Chinese ships in the region, but “it’s not true” said Lin Mortensgaard, an expert on the international politics of the Arctic at the Danish Institute for International Studies, or DIIS.
While there are probably Russian submarines – as there are across the Arctic region – there are no surface vessels, Mortensgaard said. China has research vessels in the Central Arctic Ocean, and while the Chinese and Russian militaries have done joint military exercises in the Arctic, they have taken place closer to Alaska, she said.
Bayoumi, of the Atlantic Council, said he doubted Trump would take control of Greenland by force because it’s unpopular with both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, and would likely “fundamentally alter” U.S. relationships with allies worldwide.
The U.S. already has access to Greenland under a 1951 defense agreement, and Denmark and Greenland would be “quite happy” to accommodate a beefed up American military presence, Mortensgaard said.
For that reason, “blowing up the NATO alliance” for something Trump has already, doesn’t make sense, said Ulrik Pram Gad, an expert on Greenland at DIIS.
Bilateral agreements may assist effort
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a select group of U.S. lawmakers this week that it was the Republican administration’s intention to eventually purchase Greenland, as opposed to using military force. Danish and Greenlandic officials have previously said the island isn’t for sale.
It’s not clear how much buying the island could cost, or if the U.S. would be buying it from Denmark or Greenland.
Washington also could boost its military presence in Greenland “through cooperation and diplomacy,” without taking it over, Bayoumi said.
One option could be for the U.S. to get a veto over security decisions made by the Greenlandic government, as it has in islands in the Pacific Ocean, Gad said.
Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands have a Compact of Free Association, or COFA, with the U.S.
That would give Washington the right to operate military bases and make decisions about the islands’ security in exchange for U.S. security guarantees and around $7 billion of yearly economic assistance, according to the Congressional Research Service.
It’s not clear how much that would improve upon Washington’s current security strategy. The U.S. already operates the remote Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland, and can bring as many troops as it wants under existing agreements.
Influence operations expected to fail
Greenlandic politician Aaja Chemnitz told The Associated Press that Greenlanders want more rights, including independence, but don’t want to become part of the U.S.
Gad suggested influence operations to persuade Greenlanders to join the U.S. would likely fail. He said that is because the community on the island is small and the language is “inaccessible.”
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lkke Rasmussen summoned the top U.S. official in Denmark in August to complain that “foreign actors” were seeking to influence the country’s future. Danish media reported that at least three people with connections to Trump carried out covert influence operations in Greenland.
Even if the U.S. managed to take control of Greenland, it would likely come with a large bill, Gad said. That’s because Greenlanders currently have Danish citizenship and access to the Danish welfare system, including free health care and schooling.
To match that, “Trump would have to build a welfare state for Greenlanders that he doesn’t want for his own citizens,” Gad said.
Disagreement unlikely to be resolved
Since 1945, the American military presence in Greenland has decreased from thousands of soldiers over 17 bases and installations to 200 at the remote Pituffik Space Base in the northwest of the island, Rasmussen said last year. The base supports missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance operations for the U.S. and NATO.
U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance told Fox News on Thursday that Denmark has neglected its missile defense obligations in Greenland, but Mortensgaard said that it makes “little sense to criticize Denmark,” because the main reason why the U.S. operates the Pituffik base in the north of the island is to provide early detection of missiles.
The best outcome for Denmark would be to update the defense agreement, which allows the U.S. to have a military presence on the island and have Trump sign it with a “gold-plated signature,” Gad said.
But he suggested that’s unlikely because Greenland is “handy” to the U.S president.
When Trump wants to change the news agenda – including distracting from domestic political problems – “he can just say the word ‘Greenland’ and this starts all over again,” Gad said.
COPENHAGEN, Jan 10 (Reuters) – When U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio meets his Danish and Greenlandic counterparts next week, Denmark will be defending a territory that has been moving steadily away from it and towards independence since 1979.
President Donald Trump’s threats to seize Greenland have triggered a wave of European solidarity with Denmark. But the crisis has exposed an uncomfortable reality – Denmark is rallying support to protect a territory whose population wants independence, and whose largest opposition party now wants to bypass Copenhagen and negotiate directly with Washington.
“Denmark risks exhausting its foreign policy capital to secure Greenland, only to watch it walk away afterwards,” said Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen, a political science professor at University of Copenhagen.
Denmark cannot let Greenland go without losing its geopolitical relevance in the Arctic territory, strategically located between Europe and North America and a critical site for the U.S. ballistic missile defence system.
Yet it may ultimately have nothing to show for its efforts if Greenlanders choose independence – or strike their own deal with Washington.
The stakes extend beyond Denmark’s national interests. European allies have rallied behind Denmark not just out of solidarity, but because giving up Greenland would set a dangerous precedent that could embolden other powers to pursue territorial claims against smaller nations, upending the post-1945 world order.
Denmark’s foreign ministry declined to comment, but referred to joint remarks by Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen on December 22.
“National borders and the sovereignty of states are rooted in international law,” the two leaders said. “They are fundamental principles. You cannot annex another country … Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders.”
This week, Frederiksen said: “If the U.S. chooses to attack another NATO country, everything stops, including NATO and the security the alliance has provided since World War Two.”
For now, the Trump administration says all options are on the table, including buying the territory or taking it by force.
Copenhagen professor Rasmussen said any discussion of whether holding on to Greenland is worth the cost has been drowned out by outrage at Trump’s threats.
“It is not part of the political debate in Denmark. I fear we have gone into patriotic overdrive,” he said.
During the Cold War, Greenland’s strategic location gave Denmark outsized influence in Washington and allowed it to maintain lower defence spending than would otherwise be expected of a NATO ally.
This became known as “the Greenland Card”, according to a 2017 report by the University of Copenhagen’s Centre for Military Studies.
But Greenland’s aspirations for self-determination have been brewing since the former colony got greater autonomy and its own parliament in 1979. A 2009 agreement explicitly recognised Greenlanders’ right to independence if they choose.
All Greenlandic parties say they want independence, but differ on how, and when, to achieve it.
Trump’s pressure has accelerated a timeline that was already in motion, forcing Copenhagen to spend political capital and financial resources on a relationship with an increasingly uncertain endpoint.
“How much should we fight for someone who doesn’t really care about us?” Joachim B. Olsen, a political commentator and former Danish lawmaker, told Reuters.
Copenhagen provides an annual block grant of roughly 4.3 billion Danish crowns ($610 million) to Greenland’s economy, which is near stagnation with GDP growth of just 0.2% in 2025.
The central bank estimates an annual financing gap of approximately 800 million Danish crowns to make current public finances sustainable. Denmark also covers police, the justice system and defence – bringing total annual spending to just under $1 billion.
In addition, Copenhagen last year announced a 42 billion Danish crowns ($6.54 billion) Arctic defence package in response to U.S. criticism that Denmark has not done enough to protect Greenland.
Some reject framing the relationship in transactional terms, pointing to Denmark’s legal and moral obligations under international law and centuries of shared history.
“We’re talking about family relations, long history of relations between Denmark and Greenland,” said Marc Jacobsen, associate professor at the Royal Danish Defence College. “So this is much more, it’s not just about defence and economy, it’s about feelings, it’s about culture.”
Prime Minister Frederiksen faces a difficult balancing act, said Serafima Andreeva, researcher at Oslo-based Fridtjof Nansen Institute.
For now, Denmark has little choice but to stand firm to maintain its diplomatic credibility, but in doing so risks the relationship with the United States at a time “when Russia is an accelerating threat and being on the U.S.’s bad side is no good for anyone in the West”.
Frederiksen also faces an election this year, though Greenland has not been a major theme.
“I don’t understand why we have to cling to this community with Greenland when they so badly want out of it,” Lone Frank, a Danish science writer and broadcaster, told Reuters. “To be completely honest, Greenland doesn’t inspire any sense of belonging in me.”
(Reporting by Jacob Gronholt-Pedersen and Stine Jacobsen in Copenhagen; additional reporting by Soren Sirich Jeppesen and Tom Little; Editing by Alex Richardson)
What some of Trump’s own senior officials once viewed as the delusional musings of a dilettante have now become a genuine international crisis, one that could lead—or maybe it already has led—to the effective end of NATO. After this week, is there anyone who can credibly claim to be sure that the United States, under Trump, would honor the commitment to mutual defense that is the foundation of the alliance?
Greenland, it turns out, is not a punch line but a template that explains much about Trump’s foreign policy: it’s about a power-grabbing President who looks at territory on a map and says he wants to own it. Trump could not articulate a rationale for acquiring Greenland—“from a strategic standpoint, from a locational standpoint, from a geography standpoint, it’s something that we should have,” he told us—any more than he can elaborate on what his plan is for Venezuela now that he’s toppled the country’s leader and seized some of its oil. Asked by reporters from the Times, on Wednesday, why he couldn’t just settle for the terms of the existing 1951 treaty with Denmark, which grants the U.S. military nearly unlimited use of Greenland’s territory, Trump replied, “Ownership is very important.” He added, “because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success.” There are no limits to his global powers, Trump said, except one thing: “My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
Trump’s approach to the world is not the isolationism that many of his supporters celebrated when he returned to the White House, vowing an “America First” shift away from the liberal internationalism of his predecessors, but a narcissistic form of unilateralism that says, loudly, I can do whatever I want, whenever and however I want to do it. Unrestrained power wielded for its own sake is the theme, and, along with Trump himself, his deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, is its muse. Miller’s snarling enunciation of this doctrine, in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper on Monday, during which he asserted America’s right to do as it wished with Greenland, has justifiably been taken as an important statement of the world view underpinning this Administration. “We live in a world, the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power,” Miller said. “These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”
Counting last weekend’s daring commando raid on Maduro’s compound, Trump has now ordered U.S. military attacks on seven different nations since returning to the White House: Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen. “Trump is tough with the weak but weak with the tough,” as Raphaël Glucksmann, a French member of the European Parliament, put it to the Wall Street Journal. Does it make it better or worse that, in most cases, Trump’s attention has come and gone as quickly as the missiles he has unleashed? That he has lingered on his military triumphs only long enough to make sweeping claims about the transformative, brilliant, incredible results he has achieved before quickly moving on to some other preoccupation? In the days since the Venezuela attack, Trump has explicitly threatened not only Greenland but also Colombia, Iran, and Mexico. Why? Because he can. A decade into Trump’s political career and nearly a year into his second term, we can now say definitively that the President’s signature geopolitical move is not withdrawing the United States from the world but performative displays of force to impose his will on it.
For a man who’s also spent the past year proclaiming himself the “President of PEACE,” this seems like an almost inconceivable twist. It’s not—Trump views these dramatic military actions as stand-alone accomplishments in their own right. The use of force is, for this President, not so much a means of achieving American national-security goals as an end in itself. Trump’s reaction to observing the Venezuela attack unfold in real time is worth remembering in the context of an operation that, according to the latest U.S. estimates, killed some seventy-five people, including both Maduro’s security detail and local residents. “I mean, I watched it, literally, like, I was watching a television show,” he marvelled in an interview with Fox News, on Saturday. “And if you would have seen the speed, the violence.”
Donald Trump is once again serving up a quote that sounds less like a presidential soundbite and more like a rejected line from a supervillain origin movie. And yes, it’s as alarming as it is headline-ready.
In a new interview with the New York Times that has everyone clutching their pearls, Trump made it clear that pesky little things like international laws, rules, and norms are more of a suggestion than an actual obstacle. When discussing his ever-expanding vision for American dominance on Thursday, he casually dropped this gem:
“I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people.”
Oh, okay! If you say so! Nothing says reassuring like dismissing international law in the same breath as claiming you’ll only have benevolent intentions… Yeah, tell that to the multiple civilians who’ve been killed of late..
When the Times tried to gently nudge him back toward reality by pointing out that, yes, laws do apply, Trump doubled down with a rhetorical shrug that could be heard around the globe:
“It depends what your definition of international law is.”
WHAT?!
Because definitions are so subjective, right? Gravity, laws, facts: all vibes-based, apparently. Sheesh…
But wait, it gets better. According to Trump, there is exactly one thing holding him back from full-on global supremacy. And no, it’s not Congress, the courts, or literally the rest of the world. It’s this:
“My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
Take a moment, y’all. Breathe. Scream into a pillow if needed.
This interview lands just days after US forces under Trump’s direction seized Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and first lady Cilia Flores during strikes on the city of Caracas before shipping them off to face narco terrorism charges. Venezuela may have an interim leader now, but Trump has been boasting America is basically running the show.
And why stop there? Greenland is still on his wishlist, too. To that end, Trump explained to the Times on Thursday that being allies with Denmark simply isn’t enough. He wants full ownership of the land mass. In his own words:
“Because that’s what I feel is psychologically needed for success. I think that ownership gives you a thing that you can’t do with, you’re talking about a lease or a treaty. Ownership gives you things and elements that you can’t get from just signing a document.”
Add this to past musings about Colombia, Cuba, Iran, and Mexico, and suddenly this feels less like foreign policy and more like a Monopoly board where someone flipped the table.
Buckle up, y’all. Apparently the only thing between us and Trump’s global takeover is… Trump. Yikes.
After capturing Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and saying the U.S. was taking control of the South American country, President Donald Trump and others in his administration suggested that Greenland could be the next U.S. target.
The day the U.S. took Maduro into custody to face U.S. drug-trafficking charges, Katie Miller, wife of senior White House aide Stephen Miller, posted on X a map of Greenland overlaid with the U.S. flag. “Soon,” the caption said.
The next day, CNN anchor Jake Tapper asked Stephen Miller about Greenland. It’s geographically the world’s largest island — about five times the size of California — and has about 56,000 residents. Denmark colonized it centuries ago, and later incorporated it into Denmark.
Miller said the Trump administration’s longstanding policy is that “Greenland should be part of the United States.”
When Tapper asked whether the administration would rule out military action, Miller said, “The real question is: By what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland? What is the basis of their territorial claim? What is their basis of having Greenland as a colony of Denmark?”
White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told PolitiFact that Trump is “confident Greenlanders would be better served if protected by the United States from modern threats in the Arctic region.”
We asked experts about the history of the Denmark-Greenland relationship and Greenland’s status under international law. They agreed Greenland’s status as part of Denmark is rock solid and that any attempt to take over Greenland would flout international law.
What the Trump administration has floated
U.S. officials have repeatedly expressed interest in controlling Greenland, which is located between the United States and Europe. The naval corridor between Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom, called the “GIUK Gap,” is a strategic channel in the Arctic because it is a main transit route for Europe, the Americas and Russia. Greenland also has potentially valuable mineral deposits.
“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security,” Trump told reporters Jan. 4 aboard Air Force One.
Two days later, the White House issued a statement that Greenland is “vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region” and that Trump and his team are “discussing a range of options” which could include utilizing the U.S. military.
If the United States did attempt to seize Greenland, it is unlikely to face military resistance, wrote Ivo Daalder, who served as U.S. ambassador to NATO under President Barack Obama.
“Taking Greenland won’t be difficult,” Daalder wrote Jan. 6. “Its population of 50,000 won’t be able offer much resistance, nor will Denmark want to enter a fight it cannot win.” (Miller said something similar in his interview with Tapper: “Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.”)
Daalder warned, though, that such U.S. military action could damage the credibility of NATO, the mutual defense pact the U.S. has led for decades.
“To suggest that American security in the Arctic requires that it owns Greenland implicitly indicates that the NATO security commitment is hollow and insufficient for its security,” Daalder wrote. “That’s hardly a reassuring message to the other 31 NATO members, many of whom face far more immediate threats than the United States.”
What is the basis of Denmark’s claim to Greenland?
Denmark’s colonization of Greenland dates to the 1720s. In 1933, an international court settled a territorial dispute between Denmark and Norway, ruling that as of July 1931, Denmark “possessed a valid title to the sovereignty over all Greenland.”
But Greenland has not been a colony for more than three-quarters of a century, said Diane Marie Amann, a University of Georgia emerita law professor.
After World War II, colonialism “was decidedly rejected in the United Nations charter,” said Tom Ginsburg, a University of Chicago international law professor.
After the 1945 approval of the United Nations charter — the organization’s founding document and the foundation of much of international law — Denmark incorporated Greenland through a constitutional amendment and gave it representation in the Danish Parliament in 1953. Denmark told the United Nations that any colonial-type status had ended, and the United Nations General Assembly accepted this change in November 1954, said Greg Fox, a Wayne State University law professor. The United States voted to accept the new status.
Since then, Greenland has, incrementally but consistently, moved toward greater autonomy.
Greenlandic political activists successfully pushed for and achieved home rule in 1979, which established its parliament. Today, Greenland is a district within the sovereign state of Denmark, Amann said, with two elected representatives in Denmark’s parliament. These representatives have full voting rights — greater authority than the U.S. gives congressional delegates for its territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands.
In 2008, Greenlanders voted 76% to 24% in favor of expanding the island’s autonomous status, in a non-binding referendum. This led to a 2009 law that recognized Greenlanders as a distinct people, as well as making Greenlandic the island’s official language and granting Greenland power over its mineral resources.
A satellite photo highlighting Greenland, as well as Iceland and the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. (NASA/public domain)
What is Greenland’s status under international law?
The 2009 law established that the Greenlandic people have the power to pursue independence from Denmark if they choose. To date, they have not done so.
While Danish law gives Greenland substantial local control, “That doesn’t mean that Greenland is any less a part of Denmark for international law purposes,” Fox said. “Because Greenland is fully incorporated into Denmark, it means that under international law, Denmark can both represent Greenland’s interests and people to other countries and can assert its rights if other countries cause it harm.”
Fox compared Greenland’s status within Denmark to Michigan’s or Ohio’s within the U.S. “The U.S. represents their interests and the interests of their people to the rest of the international community,” he said. Denmark’s sovereignty “covers all its territory, including Greenland,” Fox said.
The United Nations’ charter, to which the U.S. is a signatory, says members must refrain from threatening or using force “against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.” Amann said this means that “no other country may assist or secure such a secession, whether by the actual use of military force or by threatening to use such force.”
If Greenland “wanted Denmark to transfer them to the United States, they might be able to request that,” Ginsburg said. “But that’s not the situation now.”
U.S. history of recognizing Denmark’s authority over Greenland
The U.S. has recognized Denmark’s “territorial sovereignty” over Greenland on multiple occasions, beyond the 1953 United Nations vote:
The United States’ purchase of the Danish West Indies — now known as the U.S. Virgin Islands — included a 1917 agreement with Denmark that mentioned Greenland. Then-Secretary of State Robert Lansing said the U.S. government “will not object to the Danish Government extending their political and economic interests to the whole of Greenland.”
In 1946, the U.S. under President Harry Truman formally proposed buying Greenland. Denmark declined to sell.
In 1951, the U.S. signed a Greenland-related defense agreement with Denmark, which it updated in 2004. The agreement, which affirmed and outlined the American military’s presence, said in its first paragraph that Greenland’s status had changed “from colony to that of an equal part of the Kingdom of Denmark.”
Collectively, the existence of these treaties “means the United States believed (Denmark) was the country with authority over Greenland,” Fox said.
PolitiFact Researcher Caryn Baird contributed to this report.
President Donald Trump’s yearslong threats to take over Greenland have crescendoed this week. On Wednesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump is considering a range of options in pursuit of the country, and that “utilising the U.S. military is always an option at the commander-in-chief’s disposal.”
But according to foreign policy experts, Danish officials have been baffled by Trump’s threats to resort to military intervention to gain control of Greenland because there’s already a long-standing agreement in place for the U.S. to increase its military presence there. In 1951, the U.S. and Denmark signed a little-known defense agreement allowing the U.S. “to improve and generally to fit the area for military use” in Greenland and “construct, install, maintain, and operate facilities and equipment” there.
“This agreement is very generous, it’s very open,” Mikkel Runge Olesen, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies in Copenhagen, told Fortune. “The U.S. would be able to achieve almost any security goal that you can imagine under that agreement.”
Given the wide-reaching terms of the contract, “there is very little understanding as to why the U.S. would need to take over Greenland at this time,” Olesen added.
Though Trump’s desire for Greenland has punctuated both of his administrations (in 2019, his intentions to buy the self-governing Danish territory were immediately rebuffed by Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen), world leaders have taken the president’s most recent interest in the island more seriously. Following the U.S. forces’ capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, Trump has invoked greater imperial authority through what he has endorsed as the “Donroe Doctrine,” alluding to the 19th century Monroe Doctrine, a foreign policy warning European powers against intervention in the western hemisphere.
Greenland—covered in ice and home to 56,000, mostly Inuit people—has become crucial to the defense of North America thanks to its positioning above the Arctic Circle giving it access to naval and shipping routes. Combined with its abundance of rare earths, the country has become coveted by Trump, who wants to secure it not only for its wealth of natural resources, but also against the Chinese and Russian ships he claims have anchored themselves in the Arctic region.
Long-standing U.S.-Danish ties
For more than 80 years, the U.S. has had a presence on Greenland, which became a foundational part of its deepening relationship with Denmark—and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). During WWII, Danish ambassador to the U.S. Henrik Kauffmann, defied the Nazi-controlled Danish government and essentially brokered a deal with the U.S. to give America access to Greenland. A U.S. military holding there would prevent Nazi forces from using the island as a bridge between Europe and North America.
The deal that was supposed to dissolve after the war was instead bolstered by the creation of NATO in 1949, which obligated the U.S. to provide defense for Europe against Soviet forces. A new agreement in 1951 confirmed the U.S.’ rights to establish defense areas in Greenland, and is contingent upon the continued existence of NATO to be valid. In 2004, the agreement was updated to add Greenland, which established some self-governance in 1979, as a signatory.
The U.S. has only one military base on Greenland today, the Pituffik Space Base, down from about 50 during the height of the Cold War. But should the U.S. want to expand its presence there for national security reasons, as Trump has suggested, it would require negotiations with Denmark and Greenland, Olesen said. Historically, those negotiations have been friendly.
“In practical terms, there has been a tendency on the Danish and the Greenlandic side to always look at us security requests in Greenland with a lot of goodwill and a lot of openness,” he said.
Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen, citing the 1951 agreement, implored the Trump administration to stop his talk of taking over Greenland.
“We already have a defense agreement between the Kingdom and the United States today, which gives the United States wide access to Greenland,” Frederiksen said in a statement over the weekend. “I would therefore strongly urge the United States to stop the threats against a historically close ally and against another country and another people who have said very clearly that they are not for sale.”
Trump’s motivations for taking Greenland
Garret Martin, lecturer and codirector of the Transatlantic Policy Center at American University, speculates Trump’s insistence on appearing to brush off the 1951 agreement in favor of military force or offers to purchase Greenland (despite Danish officials repeatedly saying the country is not for sale), is an extension of the 19th century “gunboat diplomacy” philosophy the president took with Venezuela.
In the case of Greenland, Trump could be wanting to send a message to Denmark the U.S. has greater military capabilities that it is willing to deploy.
“Trump believes—and is often very keen to emphasize—the United States as leverage,” Martin told Fortune. “And it’s possible he’s trying to tell Denmark, ‘Look, you are in a position of weakness. Greenland really fundamentally depends on us. Why should we have to avail ourselves of those formalities when really we’re the key player?’”
Trump’s tactics could also come from a desire to stake claim over the rare earth metals buried deep under the Greenlandic ice, which has become more urgent to Trump as China sits on 90% of the rare earth the world needs.
Anthony Marchese, chairman of Texas Mineral Resources Corporation, told Fortune earlier this week the president’s hope of mining those rare earths is nearly a fantasy. The northern part of Greenland is mineable only six months out of the year due to treacherous weather conditions, and expensive mining equipment has to endure months in that cold climate.
“If you’re going to go to Greenland for its minerals, you’re talking billions upon billions upon billions of dollars and extremely long time before anything ever comes of it,” he said.
According to Olesen, Trump’s desire for rare earths, as well as his national security urgency, can be addressed by Danish and Greenlandic officials through negotiations, making them less of a concern. The trouble will be if Trump’s biggest motivator to move into Greenland is a symbolic show of military prowess rather than specific demands that can be addressed through diplomacy.
“It’s hard to compromise with territorial expansion,” Olesen said.
It’s the first week of a new year for Congress, and each chamber is considering legislation with votes to watch on Thursday.Enhanced Health Care SubsidiesThe House of Representatives is voting on a bill to reinstate tax credits that expired last year and were central to the government shutdown.The bill aims to extend these subsidies for three years, helping those without insurance through their employers pay for coverage. Four Republicans: Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-1st), Rep. Ryan McKenzie (PA-7th), Rep. Rob Bresnahan (PA-8th), and Rep. Mike Lawler (NY-17th) joined Democrats to push the vote, which is expected to pass. Five more Republicans joined Democrats during a test vote on Wednesday.However, the Senate is not expected to consider this bill, as they are working on their own Affordable Care Act reform measure designed to pass both chambers.Venezuela War Powers ResolutionThe Senate is revisiting a war powers resolution that would prevent the president from using military force in Venezuela without congressional approval. This follows a recent military operation in Venezuela’s capital, which led to the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, who are now in New York facing narcoterrorism charges. President Donald Trump has stated that the U.S. is running Venezuela and may deploy the military again if the remaining Maduro regime does not comply with U.S. demands.The same resolution failed a previous vote, as well as a measure to stop the Trump administration from bombing alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and Pacific that the White House says were connected to Venezuela. Past administrations arrested and charged such suspects. The Trump administration’s campaign has killed more than 100 people.Reactions To Greenland RhetoricThe White House’s suggestion to use military force to take over Greenland has been met with criticism on Capitol Hill. Democrats have long opposed this idea, and several Republicans have recently spoken out against it.Rep. Mike Johnson, House Speaker, said, “All this stuff about military action and all that, I don’t even think that’s a possibility.” Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina criticized the notion, saying, “Making insane comments about how it is our right to have territory owned by the kingdom of Denmark, folks, amateur hour is over.” Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana noted, “In the case of Greenland, you have two things: one, not a present threat, and so they have a duly elected president. So, he doesn’t have the authority without Congress.”Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska added, “It’s very… amateurish. I feel like we’ve got high school kids playing Risk.”Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also stated that the president wants to buy Greenland.Earlier this week, the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Hearst Television: “President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.”Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:
WASHINGTON —
It’s the first week of a new year for Congress, and each chamber is considering legislation with votes to watch on Thursday.
Enhanced Health Care Subsidies
The House of Representatives is voting on a bill to reinstate tax credits that expired last year and were central to the government shutdown.
The bill aims to extend these subsidies for three years, helping those without insurance through their employers pay for coverage. Four Republicans: Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-1st), Rep. Ryan McKenzie (PA-7th), Rep. Rob Bresnahan (PA-8th), and Rep. Mike Lawler (NY-17th) joined Democrats to push the vote, which is expected to pass. Five more Republicans joined Democrats during a test vote on Wednesday.
However, the Senate is not expected to consider this bill, as they are working on their own Affordable Care Act reform measure designed to pass both chambers.
Venezuela War Powers Resolution
The Senate is revisiting a war powers resolution that would prevent the president from using military force in Venezuela without congressional approval. This follows a recent military operation in Venezuela’s capital, which led to the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, who are now in New York facing narcoterrorism charges.
President Donald Trump has stated that the U.S. is running Venezuela and may deploy the military again if the remaining Maduro regime does not comply with U.S. demands.
The same resolution failed a previous vote, as well as a measure to stop the Trump administration from bombing alleged drug boats in the Caribbean and Pacific that the White House says were connected to Venezuela. Past administrations arrested and charged such suspects. The Trump administration’s campaign has killed more than 100 people.
Reactions To Greenland Rhetoric
The White House’s suggestion to use military force to take over Greenland has been met with criticism on Capitol Hill. Democrats have long opposed this idea, and several Republicans have recently spoken out against it.
Rep. Mike Johnson, House Speaker, said, “All this stuff about military action and all that, I don’t even think that’s a possibility.”
Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina criticized the notion, saying, “Making insane comments about how it is our right to have territory owned by the kingdom of Denmark, folks, amateur hour is over.”
Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana noted, “In the case of Greenland, you have two things: one, not a present threat, and so they have a duly elected president. So, he doesn’t have the authority without Congress.”
Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska added, “It’s very… amateurish. I feel like we’ve got high school kids playing Risk.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has also stated that the president wants to buy Greenland.
Earlier this week, the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Hearst Television: “President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States, and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.”
Keep watching for the latest from the Washington News Bureau:
Who knew that by “America First,” President Trump meant all of the Americas?
In puzzling over that question at least, I’ve got company in Marjorie Taylor Greene, the now-former congresswoman from Georgia and onetime Trump devotee who remains stalwart in his America First movement. Greene tweeted on Saturday, just ahead of Trump’s triumphal news conference about the United States’ decapitation of Venezuela’s government by the military’s middle-of-the-night nabbing of Nicolás Maduro and his wife: “This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end. Boy were we wrong.”
Wrong indeed. Nearly a year into his second term, Trump has done nothing but exacerbate the domestic problems that Greene identified as America First priorities — bringing down the “increasing cost of living, housing, healthcare” within the 50 states — even as he’s pursued the “never ending military aggression” and foreign adventurism that America Firsters scorn, or at least used to. Another Trump con. Another lie.
Here’s a stunning stat, thanks to Military Times: In 2025, Trump ordered 626 missile strikes worldwide, 71 more than President Biden did in his entire four-year term. Targets, so far, have included Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Nigeria, Iran and the waters off Venezuela and Colombia. Lately he’s threatened to hit Iran again if it kills demonstrators who have been marching in Tehran’s streets to protest the country’s woeful economic conditions. (“We are locked and loaded and ready to go,” Trump posted Friday.)
The president doesn’t like “forever wars,” he’s said many times, but he sure loves quick booms and cinematic secret ops. Leave aside, for now, the attacks in the Middle East, Africa and the Caribbean and the eastern Pacific. It’s Trump’s new claim to “run” Venezuela that has signaled the beginning of his mind-boggling bid for U.S. hegemony over the Western Hemisphere. Any such ambition raises the potential for quick actions to become quagmires.
As Stephen Miller, perhaps Trump’s closest and most like-minded (read: unhinged) advisor, described the administration’s worldview on Monday to CNN’s Jake Tapper: “We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.”
You know, that old, amoral iron law: “Might makes right.” Music to Vladimir Putin’s and Xi Jinping’s ears as they seek hegemonic expansion of their own, confident that the United States has given up the moral high ground from which to object.
But it was Trump, the branding maven, who gave the White House worldview its name — his own, of course: the Donroe Doctrine. And it was Trump who spelled out what that might mean in practice for the Americas, in a chest-thumping, war-mongering performance on Sunday returning to Washington aboard Air Force One. The wannabe U.S. king turns out to be a wannabe emperor of an entire hemisphere.
“We’re in charge,” Trump said of Venezuela to reporters. “We’re gonna run it. Fix it. We’ll have elections at the right time.” He added, “If they don’t behave, we’ll do a second strike.” He went on, suggestively, ominously: “Colombia is very sick too,” and “Cuba is ready to fall.” Looking northward, he coveted more: “We need Greenland from a national security situation.”
Separately, Trump recently has said that Colombia’s leftist President Gustavo Petro “does have to watch his ass,” and that, given Trump’s unhappiness with the ungenuflecting Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, “Something’s going to have to be done with Mexico.” In their cases as well as Maduro’s, Trump’s ostensible complaints have been that each has been complacent or complicit with drug cartels.
And yet, just last month Trump pardoned the former president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández, who was convicted in a U.S. court and given a 45-year sentence for his central role in “one of the largest and most violent drug-trafficking conspiracies in the world.” Hernández helped traffickers ship 400 tons of cocaine into the United States — to “stuff the drugs up the gringos’ noses.” And Trump pardoned him after less than two years in prison.
So it’s implausible that a few weeks later, the U.S. president truly believes in taking a hard line against leaders he suspects of abetting the drug trade. Maybe Trump’s real motivation is something other than drug-running?
In his appearance after the Maduro arrest, Trump used the word “oil” 21 times. On Tuesday, he announced, in a social media post, of course, that he was taking control of the proceeds from up to 50 barrels of Venezuelan oil. (Not that he cares, but that would violate the Constitution, which gives Congress power to appropriate money that comes into the U.S. Treasury.)
Or perhaps, in line with the Monroe Doctrine, our current president has a retro urge to dominate half the world.
Lately his focus has been on Venezuela and South America, but North America is also in his sights. Trump has long said he might target Mexico to hit cartels and that the United States’ other North American neighbor, Canada, should become the 51st state. But it’s a third part of North America — Greenland — that he’s most intent on.
The icy island has fewer than 60,000 people but mineral wealth that’s increasingly accessible given the climate warming that Trump calls a hoax. For him to lay claim isn’t just a problem for the Americas. It’s an existential threat to NATO given that Greenland is an autonomous part of NATO ally Denmark — as Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned.
Not in 80 years did anyone imagine that NATO — bound by its tenet that an attack on one member is an attack on all — would be attacked from within, least of all from the United States. In a remarkable statement on Tuesday, U.S. allies rallied around Denmark: “It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.”
Trump’s insistence that controlling Greenland is essential to U.S. national security is nuts. The United States has had military bases there since World War II, and all of NATO sees Greenland as critical to defend against Russian and Chinese encroachment in the Arctic. Still, Trump hasn’t ruled out the use of force to take the island.
He imagines himself to be the emperor of the Americas — all of it. Americas First.
Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Finland’s President Alexander Stubb, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, US President Donald Trump, France’s President Emmanuel Macron, Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte gather and chat with each other in the Cross Hall of the White House in Washington, United States on August 18, 2025.
Ukrainian Presidency | Anadolu | Getty Images
As 2026 kicks off with several unexpected geopolitical earthquakes, Europe looks woefully unprepared to deal with the upending of old rules — and the new world order — being created by U.S. President Donald Trump.
Less than a week into the new year and not only has the U.S. deposed Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro and threatened Colombia, Iran, Cuba and Mexico, but has also turned its sights on taking over Danish territory Greenland, potentially using military force, and threatening the very fabric and future of NATO.
Then there’s Ukraine, with European leaders’ efforts this week to cement security guarantees in a potential peace deal to end the war looking like small fry as other potential territorial takeovers garner global attention.
Largely seen as the “Old World” by the rest of the globe, Europe appears to have fallen far behind other power blocs on a number of levels, with its economy in the slow lane and its geopolitical isolation — and apparent impotence — in stark contrast with bullish regional superpowers like the U.S., Russia and China.
It’s a dangerous moment for Europe and the existing international order, analysts say, as the established rules-based international order is torn up.
“What happened in Venezuela and now talk about Greenland, Cuba or Colombia, we are really into getting into uncharted territory, and we have to be really extremely careful,” Wang Huiyao, founder and president at the Beijing-based Center for China and Globalization, told CNBC Wednesday.
“The international community has to work together now and probably stop this kind of unilateral approach. It’s a wake-up call for the European countries so closely allied with the U.S. who have suddenly realized now that its fundamental basis has been eroded and has been really challenged.”
Europe senses danger
There’s no doubt that Europe knows the trouble it’s in as it confronts both the dangers of ongoing war in Ukraine, and an elusive peace deal, as well as the real possibility of a confrontation with the U.S. over Greenland, which belongs to EU and NATO member Denmark.
European leaders met on Tuesday to discuss security guarantees for Ukraine, but also issued a statement pushing back against any American territorial ambitions over the Arctic island, insisting: “Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.”
A flurry of fraught diplomacy ensued on Wednesday morning, with France’s Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot stating that he had spoken to U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The French politician said Rubio had “ruled out the possibility of what happened in Venezuela happening in Greenland.”
Rubio reportedly told lawmakers at a closed briefing on Capitol Hill on Monday that the Trump administration did not plan to invade Greenland, but aimed to buy it from Denmark, the Wall Street Journal reported late Tuesday.
Meanwhile, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told CNBC on Tuesday that the administration was considering “a range of options” in order to acquire Greenland — including “utilizing the U.S. Military.”
Greenland and Denmark have requested a meeting with Rubio to discuss the U.S.’ intentions. On Monday, Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that “if the U.S. chooses to attack another NATO country, everything will stop.”
Existential crisis?
It’s not the first time that the transatlantic partnership has looked shaky under Trump’s leadership, with the president barely containing his disdain for Europe’s perceived shortfalls in recent years, particularly when it comes to defense spending, investment, and economic prowess.
In December, the U.S. warned in its new national security strategy (NSS) that the region faced oblivion. Trump then called Europe’s leaders “weak” and said the region was “decaying.”
European officials responded to Trump’s comments with irritation, but the uncomfortable question was whether the U.S. had a point.
In its NSS, the U.S. listed Europe’s waning economy, migration policies, and “loss of national identities and self-confidence” as reasons to worry for the continent. It then warned that European countries faced “civilizational erasure” and questioned whether they can “remain reliable allies.”
Ian Bremmer, founder and president of the political risk consultancy Eurasia Group, told CNBC that Washington was essentially telling Europe not only what it already knew, but what it was already trying to fix.
“Civilizational erasure’ sounds offensive, but many European leaders – in France, Germany, Italy – have been raising similar concerns for years. In fact, EU migration policy has tightened considerably since [former Chancellor Angela] Merkel’s open-door approach,” he told CNBC.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen meets with U.S. President Donald Trump during the 80th United Nations General Assembly, in New York City, New York, U.S., Sept. 23, 2025.
Alexander Drago | Reuters
“The key difference is that Europeans want to address these and other challenges by making Europe stronger, not by tearing it apart,” Bremmer said.
“European leaders see this for what it is,” he added.
“If Washington is no longer aligned with Europe on values Europeans consider essential, then the United States can no longer be counted on as an ally. That’s an existential crisis for the transatlantic alliance … What the Europeans are prepared to do about it is another matter entirely.”
President Trump isn’t denying the possibility of further American expansion, intervention or annexation efforts in the Western Hemisphere after the military’s success in plucking former Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from Caracas over the weekend to face drug trafficking charges in the U.S.
In the past, he’s threatened to annex Greenland and Canada and predicted the governments in Cuba and Colombia would fall. Now, Mr. Trump is making similar comments again and raising new questions about what he plans to do next.
Mr. Trump said Saturday that under his administration, “American dominance in the Western Hemisphere will never be questioned again” — dubbing his approach the “Don-roe Doctrine,” a spin on the 19th century foreign policy concept.
It’s not clear whether the president will act on his threats against other countries.
Here’s the latest on countries and territories that have been the subject of interventionist comments by the president:
Greenland
Mr. Trump has long coveted Greenland and has said it’s necessary for U.S. national security, a point he made again Sunday.
“We need Greenland from a national security situation. It’s so strategic. Right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place,” he said. “We need Greenland, from the standpoint of national security.”
“Denmark is not going to be able to do it, I can tell you,” Mr. Trump continued. “To boost up security in Greenland, they added one more dogsled.”
Administration officials are discussing a “range of options” to acquire Greenland, including using military force, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday.
The president also named Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry to serve as special envoy to Greenland last month to represent U.S. interests on the island, which is an autonomous territory of Denmark. Landry said in a social media post addressed to Mr. Trump, “It’s an honor to serve you in this volunteer position to make Greenland a part of the U.S.”
In March, Vice President JD Vance visited Greenland and told a reporter while he was there that “what we think is going to happen is that 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.”
Leaders of both Denmark and Greenland have repeatedly stated that the huge Arctic island isn’t for sale and that it will decide its future itself.
A post on Saturday by Katie Miller, the wife of top White House aide Stephen Miller, showed Greenland covered in an American flag accompanied by the comment “Soon,” which prompted some to wonder if its annexation is on the horizon.
Asked by CNN on Monday if he could rule out that the U.S. is going to try to take Greenland by force, Stephen Miller said, “There’s no need to even think or talk about this in the context that you’re asking — of a military operation. Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.”
Mr. Trump told reporters on Air Force One over the weekend that while nothing is imminent, “we’ll worry about Greenland in about two months. Let’s talk about Greenland in 20 days.”
Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens Frederik Nielsen chided Mr. Trump in a social media post, calling suggestions of annexation “fantasies” and writing: “That’s enough now.”
On Tuesday, the leaders of Europe issued a statement saying “security in the Arctic must therefore be achieved collectively, in conjunction with NATO allies including the United States, by upholding the principles of the UN Charter, including sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders. These are universal principles, and we will not stop defending them.”
Iran
Escalating protests over the desperate economic conditions in Iran have been taking place for over a week, and there have been reports that dozens of people have been killed. In response, hours before the Venezuela operation began, Mr. Trump posted on social media that if Iran “violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue.” He said the U.S. is “locked and loaded.”
The president said Sunday of the demonstrations in Iran, “We’re watching it very closely. If they start killing people like they have in the past, I think they’re going to get hit very hard by the United States.”
In June, the U.S. carried out airstrikes against Iran’s major nuclear facilities, Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan, in an effort to destroy its nuclear enrichment capacity.
Cuba
On the way back to Washington Sunday, Mr. Trump told reporters, “Cuba looks like it’s ready to fall,” adding that he didn’t know “if they’re going to hold out.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s remarks Saturday indicated Cuba’s leaders should be worried: “If I lived in Havana and I was in the government, I’d be concerned at least a little bit.” A day later, on NBC News’ “Meet the Press,” he said of Cuba, “they’re in a lot of trouble.”
Though he didn’t detail any plans for Cuba or its leaders, Rubio said, “I don’t think it’s any mystery that we are not big fans of the Cuban regime, who, by the way, are the ones that were propping up Maduro.”
Rubio highlighted the close ties between Venezuela and Cuba, noting that Maduro had relied on Cuban bodyguards for protection and said they were in charge of the Venezuelan government’s “internal intelligence.” The Cuban government said 32 Cubans were killed during the military operation to capture Maduro.
For now, Mr. Trump seems content to see how things play out on the island.
“I don’t think we need any action” in Cuba, he said, pointing out that Cuba “now has no income — they got all of their income from Venezuela, from the Venezuelan oil. They’re not getting any of it. And Cuba literally is ready to fall.”
In the past year, Cuba’s oil imports from Venezuela fell by 15%, to 27,400 barrels per day, according to Reuters, which also said that Cuba’s supply from Mexico over the same period, from January to October, had dropped by 73%, to just 5,000 bpd.
Colombia
The president appears to have less patience for Colombian President Gustavo Petro, whom he has accused of illegal drug production and trafficking.
“Colombia is very sick, too, run by a sick man who likes making cocaine and selling it to the United States, and he’s not going to be doing it very long, let me tell you,” Mr. Trump told reporters Saturday. Asked whether he was threatening to undertake a military operation in Colombia, the president replied, “It sounds good to me. You know what … they kill a lot of people.”
The Trump administration has claimed that cocaine production has spiked during Petro’s presidency, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced sanctions on Petro in October because he “has allowed drug cartels to flourish and refused to stop this activity.”
Petro has accused the U.S. of violating international law with its attacks on alleged drug boats, which have now killed at least 115 people, and he suggested that some innocent civilians may have been killed in the strikes. The U.S. denies that any innocent civilians have been killed in any of the boat strikes.
Petro — who once belonged to a guerilla group — warned Mr. Trump against taking action in his country, writing on X that he “swore never to touch a weapon again,” but “for the homeland I would take up arms that I don’t want.”
Canada
While Mr. Trump has in the past talked about making Canada the “51st state,” he has not brought it up again since the Venezuela operation.
But Mr. Trump has imposed punishing tariffs against Canada, raising the tariffs to 35% in August, though a large share of goods are exempt because they’re covered by the 2020 U.S.-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement.
In October, Mr. Trump threatened to end trade negotiations with Canada after an anti-tariff ad using Ronald Reagan’s voice ran in Ontario. Ontario Premier Doug Ford pulled the ad, saying “our intention was always to initiate a conversation about the kind of economy that Americans want to build and the impact of tariffs on workers and businesses.”
Panama Canal
Mr. Trump argued earlier in his term that the U.S. should regain control over the strategic Panama Canal — drawing flak from Panama’s government. The U.S. oversaw the canal’s construction in the early 20th century and controlled it for decades, but began handing the canal and surrounding land back over to Panama in 1979.
He claimed in March that he was “reclaiming the Panama Canal,” referring to a deal by a U.S.-led consortium to buy a controlling stake in the company that operates ports near the canal. Panama’s president accused Mr. Trump of “lying again.”
What is the Monroe Doctrine?
In 1823, America’s fifth president, James Monroe, outlined before Congress the U.S.’ policy toward its neighbors in the Western Hemisphere. It was initially intended to ward off European colonialism, but the Monroe administration also wanted to increase the U.S.’ influence and trading alliances.
During the Cold War, the U.S. cited the Monroe Doctrine to be used as a defense against the expansion of communism in Latin America.
The phrase “Don-roe Doctrine” first appeared on the cover of the New York Post last year.
Location, location, location: Greenland’s key position above the Arctic Circle makes the world’s largest island a key part of security strategy in the High North. But for whom?Increasing international tensions, global warming and the changing world economy have put Greenland at the heart of the debate over global trade and security, and U.S. President Donald Trump wants to make sure his country controls this mineral-rich country that guards the Arctic and North Atlantic approaches to North America.Greenland is a self-governing territory of Denmark, a longtime U.S. ally that has rejected Trump’s overtures. Greenland’s own government also opposes U.S. designs on the island, saying the people of Greenland will decide their own future. The island, 80% of which lies above the Arctic Circle, is home to about 56,000 mostly Inuit people who until now have been largely ignored by the rest of the world.Here’s why Greenland is strategically important to Arctic security: Greenland sits off the northeastern coast of Canada, with more than two-thirds of its territory lying within the Arctic Circle. That has made it crucial to the defense of North America since World War II, when the U.S. occupied Greenland to ensure it didn’t fall into the hands of Nazi Germany and to protect crucial North Atlantic shipping lanes.Following the Cold War, the Arctic was largely an area of international cooperation. But climate change is thinning the Arctic ice, promising to create a northwest passage for international trade and reigniting competition with Russia, China and other countries over access to the region’s mineral resources.Video below: Stephen Miller says ‘obviously Greenland should be part of the United States’ Greenland is also a rich source of the so-called rare earth minerals that are a key component of mobile phones, computers, batteries and other gadgets that are expected to power the world’s economy in the coming decades.That has attracted the interest of the U.S. and other Western powers as they try to ease China’s dominance of the market for these critical minerals.Development of Greenland’s mineral resources is challenging because of the island’s harsh climate, while strict environmental controls have proved an additional bulwark against potential investors. The U.S. Department of Defense operates the remote Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland, which was built after the U.S. and Denmark signed the Defense of Greenland Treaty in 1951. It supports missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance operations for the U.S. and NATO.Greenland also guards part of what is known as the GIUK (Greenland, Iceland, United Kingdom) Gap, where NATO monitors Russian naval movements in the North Atlantic. Denmark is moving to strengthen its military presence around Greenland and in the wider North Atlantic. Last year, the government announced a roughly 14.6 billion kroner ($2.3 billion) agreement with parties including the governments of Greenland and the Faroe Islands, another self-governing territory of Denmark, to “improve capabilities for surveillance and maintaining sovereignty in the region.” The plan includes three new Arctic naval vessels, two additional long-range surveillance drones and satellite capacity.Denmark’s Joint Arctic Command is headquartered in Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, and tasked with the “surveillance, assertion of sovereignty and military defense of Greenland and the Faroe Islands,” according to its website. It has smaller satellite stations across the island.The Sirius Dog Sled Patrol, an elite Danish naval unit that conducts long-range reconnaissance and enforces Danish sovereignty in the Arctic wilderness, is also stationed in Greenland. In 2018, China declared itself a “near-Arctic state” in an effort to gain more influence in the region. China has also announced plans to build a “Polar Silk Road” as part of its global Belt and Road Initiative, which has created economic links with countries around the world.Then-U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo rejected China’s move, saying: “Do we want the Arctic Ocean to transform into a new South China Sea, fraught with militarization and competing territorial claims?”Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Russia is worried about NATO’s activities in the Arctic and will respond by strengthening its military capability in the polar region. European leaders’ concerns were heightened following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Stefanie Dazio in Berlin contributed to this report.
Location, location, location: Greenland’s key position above the Arctic Circle makes the world’s largest island a key part of security strategy in the High North. But for whom?
Increasing international tensions, global warming and the changing world economy have put Greenland at the heart of the debate over global trade and security, and U.S. President Donald Trump wants to make sure his country controls this mineral-rich country that guards the Arctic and North Atlantic approaches to North America.
Greenland is a self-governing territory of Denmark, a longtime U.S. ally that has rejected Trump’s overtures. Greenland’s own government also opposes U.S. designs on the island, saying the people of Greenland will decide their own future.
The island, 80% of which lies above the Arctic Circle, is home to about 56,000 mostly Inuit people who until now have been largely ignored by the rest of the world.
Here’s why Greenland is strategically important to Arctic security:
Greenland sits off the northeastern coast of Canada, with more than two-thirds of its territory lying within the Arctic Circle. That has made it crucial to the defense of North America since World War II, when the U.S. occupied Greenland to ensure it didn’t fall into the hands of Nazi Germany and to protect crucial North Atlantic shipping lanes.
Following the Cold War, the Arctic was largely an area of international cooperation. But climate change is thinning the Arctic ice, promising to create a northwest passage for international trade and reigniting competition with Russia, China and other countries over access to the region’s mineral resources.
Video below: Stephen Miller says ‘obviously Greenland should be part of the United States’
Greenland is also a rich source of the so-called rare earth minerals that are a key component of mobile phones, computers, batteries and other gadgets that are expected to power the world’s economy in the coming decades.
That has attracted the interest of the U.S. and other Western powers as they try to ease China’s dominance of the market for these critical minerals.
Development of Greenland’s mineral resources is challenging because of the island’s harsh climate, while strict environmental controls have proved an additional bulwark against potential investors.
The U.S. Department of Defense operates the remote Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland, which was built after the U.S. and Denmark signed the Defense of Greenland Treaty in 1951. It supports missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance operations for the U.S. and NATO.
Greenland also guards part of what is known as the GIUK (Greenland, Iceland, United Kingdom) Gap, where NATO monitors Russian naval movements in the North Atlantic.
Denmark is moving to strengthen its military presence around Greenland and in the wider North Atlantic. Last year, the government announced a roughly 14.6 billion kroner ($2.3 billion) agreement with parties including the governments of Greenland and the Faroe Islands, another self-governing territory of Denmark, to “improve capabilities for surveillance and maintaining sovereignty in the region.”
The plan includes three new Arctic naval vessels, two additional long-range surveillance drones and satellite capacity.
Denmark’s Joint Arctic Command is headquartered in Greenland’s capital, Nuuk, and tasked with the “surveillance, assertion of sovereignty and military defense of Greenland and the Faroe Islands,” according to its website. It has smaller satellite stations across the island.
The Sirius Dog Sled Patrol, an elite Danish naval unit that conducts long-range reconnaissance and enforces Danish sovereignty in the Arctic wilderness, is also stationed in Greenland.
In 2018, China declared itself a “near-Arctic state” in an effort to gain more influence in the region. China has also announced plans to build a “Polar Silk Road” as part of its global Belt and Road Initiative, which has created economic links with countries around the world.
Then-U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo rejected China’s move, saying: “Do we want the Arctic Ocean to transform into a new South China Sea, fraught with militarization and competing territorial claims?”
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Russia is worried about NATO’s activities in the Arctic and will respond by strengthening its military capability in the polar region. European leaders’ concerns were heightened following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
Stefanie Dazio in Berlin contributed to this report.
Why does the United States want control of Greenland? President Trump has made it clear that he thinks the U.S. needs to control the Arctic island to ensure the security of America and and its NATO allies, a point those allies — and Greenland — vehemently disagree with.
But there’s more at play here, including a valuable shipping route and access to mineral resources.
Here’s what interests the U.S. about the semi-autonomous Danish territory:
“It’s so strategic right now”
Greenland spans about 836,000 square miles, much of it covered by the Greenland Ice Sheet. It’s home to only around 60,000 people and is a semi-autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark with its own elected government.
Getty/iStockphoto
Its location between the U.S., Russia and Europe makes it strategic for both economic and defense purposes — especially as melting sea ice has opened up new shipping routes through the Arctic. It is also the location of the northernmost U.S. military base.
Mr. Trump has repeatedly claimed the U.S. needs Greenland for national security purposes.
“It’s so strategic right now,” he told reporters on Sunday, Jan. 4. “Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place … We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it.”
“The Americans have a strong interest in overseeing the activities of foreign countries in Greenland because it’s such a big security asset for foreign states, and due to that, any investment or activity, from the American point of view, may be seen as a security threat,” Frank Sejersen, associate professor at the University of Copenhagen, told CBS News earlier this year.
Control over a new, valuable route for shipping
Melting sea ice around Greenland has created more opportunity to use the Northern Sea route — allowing shippers to save millions of dollars in fuel by taking a shorter route between Europe and Asia that was long only passable in warmer months.
A Russian commercial vessel, aided by an icebreaker, first traversed the route in the winter in February 2021.
An illustration by the European University at St. Petersburg shows the Northern Sea shipping route, which a Russian tanker traversed for the first time ever in the winter in February 2021, and the southern Suez Canal route.
European University at St. Petersburg
Greenland’s underground resources
Greenland has reserves of oil, natural gas and highly sought after mineral resources.
Those mineral resources, which include rare earth elements, “have only been lightly explored and developed,” Jose W. Fernandez, the U.S. Department of State’s undersecretary for economic growth, energy and the environment, said at a Minerals Security Partnership event in Greenland in November 2024.
Greenland may have significant reserves of up to 31 different minerals, including lithium and graphite, according to a 2023 report assessing the island’s resources. Both minerals are needed to produce batteries for electric vehicles and a wide array of other technologies.
Currently, lithium production is dominated by Australia, Chile and China, while China produces about 65% of the world’s graphite, the report noted.
Greenland also has the potential to provide a significant amount of rare earth minerals such as Neodymium, which is used to make the magnets used in electric motors, the 2023 report said.
China produces about 70% of rare earth elements, and demand for rare earth minerals continues to grow with technological advances and the rapid spread of consumer devices that require the resources.
There are, however, significant hurdles to mining in Greenland, including environmental and cost issues.
Most Greenlanders don’t want to be American
Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said Tuesday that his country wants good relations with the U.S. and did not “think that there might be a takeover of the country overnight, and that is why we are insisting that we want good cooperation.”
“He can’t just take it like that,” Daniel Rosing, a trainee electrician who said he was proud of being a Greenlander, told CBS News ahead of a visit last year to the island by Vice President JD Vance and his wife.
Vice President JD Vance and second lady Usha Vance tour the U.S. military’s Pituffik Space Base in Greenland, March 28, 2025, with Col. Susannah Meyers, seen on the left.
Jim Watson/Pool/Getty
A brief history of Greenland
The Kingdom of Denmark began colonizing Greenland in the early 18th century, hundreds of years after Vikings from the same distant land first arrived to set up residency.
It was not until World War II that the U.S. established a presence on the island, when then-Danish Ambassador to the U.S., Henrik Kauffmann, refused to surrender to the rule of Denmark’s Nazi occupiers.
Denmark was liberated from Nazi occupation in 1945, and the European nation carried on as a colonial ruler of Greenland until 1953, when it fully laid out its relations with the island as a semi-autonomous territory.
The U.S. never left the Pituffik Space Base, which was established during WWII.
European leaders released a joint statement Tuesday, outlining the importance of Arctic security, but stressing that “Greenland belongs to its people,” hours after White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller said it was “the formal position of the U.S. government that Greenland should be part of the U.S.”
Miller also said, in an interview Monday with CNN, that the United States, “is the power of NATO. For the U.S. to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend NATO and NATO interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the U.S.”
“NATO has made clear that the Arctic region is a priority and European Allies are stepping up. We and many other Allies have increased our presence, activities and investments, to keep the Arctic safe and to deter adversaries,” the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the U.K. and Greenland said in their joint statement on Tuesday.
“Security in the Arctic must therefore be achieved collectively, in conjunction with NATO allies including the United States, by upholding the principles of the U.N. Charter, including sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders. These are universal principles, and we will not stop defending them. The United States is an essential partner in this endeavor, as a NATO ally and through the defense agreement between the Kingdom of Denmark and the United States of 1951,” the U.S. allies said.
“Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.”
