A short while ago, it would have seemed surreal. Now, though, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Donald Trump means business when he says he wants the US to annex Greenland, an autonomous territory under Danish sovereignty—a move that directly involves the European Union. Why is this isolated, frozen island so alluring to the Trump administration?
Greenland, a sparsely populated, frozen island of 56,000 souls, has everything Washington’s new strategy requires: geography, resources, symbolism, and a crack between allies that can be prised open.
It sits between North America and Europe and straddles the infamous GIUK gap—the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom maritime passage through which Russian naval movements to the Atlantic have historically flowed. As the ice retreats, sea and air routes multiply, and the importance of controlling them skyrockets.
Behind the security rhetoric lies a brutal industrial reality. Greenland holds deposits of rare earths and critical minerals essential for defence, the green transition, and cutting-edge technologies. In a world where China controls vast swathes of the global rare earth supply chain, the idea of a “Western alternative” has enormous value.
It’s also an easy proposition. As with Venezuela, an annexation could be decided from the safety of the “situation room,” without casualties and without meaningful risk to the US. Donald Trump could thus reproduce the images of power he so envies from the Obama era.
The problem for Denmark is that, however determined it may be, it couldn’t resist a superpower militarily. According to Politico, five helicopters would suffice for American forces to seize the island.
The most realistic scenario isn’t purchase or military occupation, but accession to the US via independence. Greenland is an autonomous region of the Kingdom of Denmark, with the right, under certain conditions, to choose full independence.
This institutional “window” is the political tool Washington is trying to exploit. Not for immediate annexation, but to steer things where it wants—namely, towards a future where Greenland’s inhabitants choose to become part of the US.
The island’s society is divided between the desire for greater autonomy and the fear that an abrupt break would bring economic instability. The economy relies heavily on fishing and Danish subsidies, whilst facing demographic decline and pressure on public finances.
In this environment, American promises of “prosperity” find an audience—though they don’t translate into popular acceptance of the idea of Greenland becoming American.
This is precisely where the delicate balance lies: Washington can cultivate the notion that “Denmark is holding you back” without needing to convince the majority to change flags.
The idea that the US could threaten, even verbally, territory connected to a NATO member state is an existential shock for the Alliance. That’s why European reactions were unusually swift and coordinated.
In a joint statement, the leaders of Europe’s major powers expressed their support for Denmark and Greenland, emphasising that the Arctic island belongs to its people. But can they actually do anything meaningful to stop the US? Probably not.
Denmark warns that if the Trump administration moves unilaterally to seize Greenland, it would mean the end of the transatlantic defence alliance that has guaranteed European security since the end of the Second World War.
Some will point out that Trump has never been an enthusiastic supporter of NATO, to put it mildly. Which means the Alliance can’t do much to help Greenland.
