In early January 2026, Greenland reemerged as a focal point of geopolitical tension in the Arctic following a series of remarks by U.S. President Donald Trump asserting American claims to the island. A White House press release from Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, suggesting the administration might consider military options to achieve its important foreign policy objectives, after European leaders urged caution over the American approach on the subject, further complicated the issue. Although Trump previously framed this idea in 2019 as a “real estate deal”, his second term transformed the proposal into a more explicit claim over the territory, raising serious concerns among U.S. allies and Arctic stakeholders. The seriousness of the matter was further amplified by the recent U.S. intervention in Venezuela and the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro.
In a recent interview with the BBC, Trump argued that US ownership of Greenland is necessary to preempt Russian and Chinese expansion in the North Atlantic. He asserted that, “countries must have ownership, and you defend ownership,” adding that the United States would pursue this objective “the easy or the hard way.” This rhetoric quickly translated into political action when Representative Randy Fine, a Republican congressman, announced his Greenland Annexation and Statehood Act on January 7, 2026, as a measure to bolster Trump’s national security goals in the Arctic.
Greenland and Denmark responded with their strongest rebukes to date. While Greenland’s leadership categorically rejected US rhetoric and reaffirmed its position as part of the Kingdom of Denmark and the NATO alliance, Danish officials reiterated that the island is not for sale, even as they expressed willingness to expand defence cooperation with the United States.
The U.S. interest in Greenland is not new. As early as 1867, the U.S. State Department assessed Greenland’s strategic and resource value. In 1946, President Harry Truman offered to purchase the island for US$100 million, but Denmark ultimately rejected it.
Why Does Greenland Matter?
Greenland, the world’s largest island, is located in the Arctic, with a sparse population of approximately 56,000 people. Historically, a Danish colony, it integrated into the Kingdom of Denmark in 1953. Since then, its political status has evolved through a gradual process of political decentralisation. The Home Rule Act of 1979 granted Greenland authority over its internal affairs, while the 2009 Self-Government Act further expanded its autonomy, leaving Denmark responsible for defence, currency, and foreign policy.
Greenland withdrew from the European Community in 1985 and today holds the status of an Overseas Country and Territory (OCT) of the European Union. Despite its small population, the island’s geopolitical significance far exceeds its demographic weight.
Greenland’s significance has been rooted in its mineral wealth, natural gas, oil reserves, and strategic endowments. The European Commission has identified that twenty-five of the thirty-four critical raw materials essential to Europe’s economic and technological future are present in Greenland. As global supply chains become increasingly politicised, the presence of these resources gives immense strategic significance.
From a security perspective, Greenland hosts the Pituffik Space Base, a key U.S. military installation originally established as a ballistic missile early-warning site during the Cold War. Today, its role extends to missile defence, space surveillance, and maritime monitoring. Greenland’s location between North America and the Arctic makes it central to early-warning systems and the monitoring of Russian naval and air activity in the North Atlantic.
China and Russia on the Greenland Equation
Beijing’s engagement in Greenland is driven by interest in polar research, natural resources, earth reserves and infrastructure. Chinese involvement has faced Western pushback, including the suspension of the Kvanefjeld project in 2021 and the blocking of a Chinese proposal to acquire an abandoned naval facility. China, nevertheless, remains a deep-pocketed investor for Greenland and a huge consumer market, especially in the mining, fishing and tourism industries. Greenland, too, is seeking investment to develop its economy further. Reports suggest that China’s efforts to tap Greenland’s natural resources have had limited success.
In a statement issued as a response to US remarks over the potential annexation of Greenland, China urged Washington not to use other countries as a pretext for seeking its own selfish gains. Emphasising the Arctic concerns the broader interest of the international community, it affirmed that Beijing’s position in the region is aimed at promoting peace, stability and sustainable development in the region.
Russia’s engagement with Greenland has been more restrained, though Moscow remains deeply invested in the militarisation and commercialisation of the Arctic. Moscow and Beijing are working on developing Arctic Shipping routes. Both countries signed an agreement, particularly to train Chinese sailors in Arctic navigation. Responding to Greenland-US tension, Dmitry Medvedev, Russia’s Security Council Deputy Chairman, remarked that Greenlanders could vote to join Russia if President Trump did not move quickly to secure the Arctic island. In a 2025 statement, the Kremlin announced that it was monitoring the “dramatic development” of Greenland.
NATO’s response to US claims on Greenland
The U.S. rhetoric on Greenland has placed NATO under unprecedented strain. NATO’s Secretary General, Mark Rutte, avoided a direct statement on U.S. attempts and tried to balance the tension by reframing the shared responsibility of member states, including the U.S., to safeguard the Arctic and counter threats from Russia and China. A more assertive European front has challenged this diplomatic muddling. On 6 January 2026, a coalition of seven European countries, including France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom, issued a joint statement stating that Greenland belongs to its people and that the decisions regarding its future rest with Denmark and Greenland.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that any use of military force by the U.S. would signal the end of the transatlantic defence architecture. Danish officials have stated that they are open to expanding cooperation with the US military, while maintaining that Greenland is not for sale. The Netherlands is reportedly discussing the deployment of Dutch marines, F-35 fighter jets, submarines, and other land units to secure Greenland and the Arctic amid threats to take control of the region. At the same time, Italian Premier Giorgia Meloni expressed scepticism that Washington would resort to violence, while calling for a stronger role for NATO in the Arctic region to address U.S. security concerns. A former UK national security advisor warned that if the US annexes Greenland, it would be disastrous for NATO and could lead to the alliance’s demise, which is based on trust.
The U.S. remarks on annexing Greenland have exposed a dilemma within the Western democratic alliance. The Trump administration directly challenges the sovereignty of the Danish realms, putting MAGA-driven goals of national interest against the foundational “an attack on one member will be considered an attack on all” principle of NATO. Whether the 77-year-old alliance can survive this rift depends on how NATO members respond to such coercive pressure from their principal ally. Will the Western European democracies maintain their autonomy or succumb to U.S. pressure? Ultimately, the Greenland case serves as a litmus test for the 21st-century Western democratic alliance amid the erosion of international norms and the resurgence of aggressive nationalism.