Greenland Gambit: A Bold Continuation or a More Calculated Second Act?

As President Donald Trump embarks on his second term in office, a familiar theme has reemerged in U.S. foreign policy discussions—America’s interest in Greenland. While much debate persists over whether this term marks a mere extension of his previous administration or a refined, more disciplined phase, one issue stands out as an unequivocal continuation: Trump’s ambition to bring Greenland under U.S. control.

The Arctic territory, recognized as an autonomous nation within the Kingdom of Denmark, has once again become a focal point of Trump’s strategic vision. Reviving a claim he first made in 2019, Trump has reiterated his belief that the United States must secure ownership of Greenland to reinforce national security and global stability. In December, through his own social media platform, Truth Social, he asserted, “For purposes of national security and freedom throughout the world, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.”

However, this assertion is met with staunch opposition from Greenlanders themselves. Recent polling indicates that a staggering 85 percent of the population rejects any notion of becoming part of the United States. The overwhelming resistance from Greenland’s citizens presents a formidable barrier to Trump’s ambitions, but history suggests that U.S. interest in Greenland is far from new.

The Arctic has long been a theater of competition for global powers, and Greenland has played a crucial role in shaping this geopolitical landscape. The U.S. has sought to acquire Greenland multiple times throughout history, dating back to the sale of Alaska by Russia in 1867. In subsequent years, American policymakers considered the prospect of purchasing Greenland, but these efforts were ultimately abandoned in 1917 when President Woodrow Wilson shifted focus toward acquiring the Virgin Islands from Denmark instead.

Interestingly, Britain’s strategic calculus at the time also factored Greenland into its imperial considerations. The British government had insisted that should Denmark ever decide to sell Greenland, the United Kingdom should be granted the first right of refusal. Given Greenland’s proximity to Canada, a then-dominion of the British Empire, London viewed the territory as an essential piece in its Arctic strategy. This policy technically remains in place today, further complicating Trump’s aspirations.

Despite these historical negotiations, the United States has managed to establish a strong military presence in Greenland over the years. During World War II, American forces set up bases on the island to counter Nazi operations in the North Atlantic. Later, amid the rising tensions of the Cold War, the 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement paved the way for the expansion of the Pituffik Space Base—previously known as Thule Air Base. Today, this facility serves as a key monitoring station for space activity and a crucial node in the U.S. early-warning missile defense system.

Beyond its military importance, Greenland is rich in natural resources, making it an even more attractive asset in the evolving geopolitical competition. The island is home to vast reserves of rare earth metals—critical for advanced technologies, including renewable energy systems, semiconductors, and military applications. Additionally, significant oil and gas deposits further amplify its economic value. As global competition for resources intensifies, securing Greenland would offer the U.S. a substantial strategic advantage.

However, Trump’s renewed push for Greenland is not solely about resource acquisition. It is also a reflection of his broader vision to solidify American dominance over key global shipping routes. The Arctic’s emerging trade passages—such as the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route—are becoming more navigable due to climate change, drastically cutting travel times between major global markets. If Greenland were to fall under American control, Washington would gain leverage over these crucial arteries, mirroring U.S. control over other critical maritime chokepoints.

Trump’s Greenland ambitions align with his broader geopolitical playbook, particularly his stance on the Panama Canal. A key maritime gateway, the canal was originally controlled by the U.S. before being handed over to Panama in 1999 following the terms set by the Carter administration in 1977. Throughout his first term, Trump made it clear that he viewed this transfer of control as a strategic mistake and hinted at the possibility of reversing it.

In recent remarks, he took this rhetoric even further, refusing to rule out military intervention as a means of regaining influence over the canal. Similarly, his comments about Greenland suggest a willingness to employ aggressive tactics. While he has controversially suggested that Canada “could become a state” of the U.S., his approach toward Greenland and Panama appears far more calculated and, in his view, attainable.

Trump’s history of challenging diplomatic norms suggests that his initial approach will likely involve maximalist demands, followed by strategic recalibration. This pattern has been evident in his dealings with NATO allies, where he initially pressured European nations to increase military spending—only for many of them to eventually comply with his demands.

Trump’s renewed push for Greenland has triggered immediate responses from Denmark and the European Union. Recognizing the gravity of the situation, the Danish government recently announced a $2.05 billion investment in Arctic security, following an earlier commitment of $1.5 billion toward Greenland’s defense. These financial commitments underline Denmark’s determination to counter any potential U.S. encroachment.

Furthermore, the EU’s foreign policy chief, Kaja Kallas, has categorically rejected any negotiations over Greenland’s sovereignty, stating that the issue is “non-negotiable.” The EU’s firm stance signals that any U.S. attempt to assert control over Greenland would lead to significant diplomatic fallout, potentially straining Washington’s relations with key European partners.

Yet, for Trump, this strong response may serve a dual purpose. Not only does it reinforce his brand of assertive diplomacy, but it also pressures NATO allies to boost their defense spending—an outcome he has long championed. With Denmark committing billions to Arctic security, Trump can claim a victory of sorts, framing it as yet another instance of America pushing allies to shoulder more of their own defense costs.

While a full-scale military intervention in Greenland seems unlikely, Trump’s history suggests that economic pressure, political maneuvering, and diplomatic coercion remain on the table. Past examples illustrate this approach—most notably in his handling of Colombia’s migrant repatriation issue, where Bogotá initially resisted but eventually yielded under the threat of economic sanctions. A similar strategy could be employed against Denmark, leveraging economic incentives or penalties to advance U.S. interests.

However, the geopolitical stakes in Greenland are far higher. A move to assert control over the territory would put Washington in direct conflict with a key NATO ally and the broader EU bloc. Unlike smaller nations that have acquiesced to U.S. pressure, Denmark has the backing of Europe’s most powerful institutions, making a forced acquisition far more complex.

As Trump forges ahead with his second term, his pursuit of Greenland signals a broader shift in American foreign policy—one that prioritizes strategic territorial control, economic leverage, and military dominance. Whether this renewed push for Greenland is a mere rhetorical flourish or a genuine geopolitical ambition remains to be seen. However, one thing is clear: the Arctic is fast becoming a critical battleground in global power dynamics, and Trump intends for America to have the upper hand.

With mounting resistance from Denmark and the EU, as well as strong opposition from Greenland’s own population, Trump’s vision faces significant hurdles. Yet, if history is any guide, his administration’s strategy will likely blend initial aggressive posturing with calculated diplomatic maneuvers. As the Arctic’s importance continues to grow, the world will be watching closely to see how this high-stakes game unfolds.