Since the beginning of January, Greenland, a large autonomous Arctic territory under Danish administration, has felt on the fringes of global debates and has found itself at the center of international politics.
As U.S. President Donald Trump repeats his demands that Washington take control of the island, this prospect of annexing another country’s territory has placed the United States’ relations with its European NATO coalition in a precarious position.
When Trump first floated such plans back in 2019, at the start of his second term, they were largely regarded as impractical whims. However, in recent weeks the situation has changed: after the U.S. strike on Caracas and the removal of President Nicolás Maduro on January 3, the president’s statements have sounded loudly again, backed by demonstrations of U.S. power.
Escalation of the conflict in U.S.–Europe relations
European leaders warn that the Greenland crisis could tear apart the transatlantic NATO alliance, while Trump threatens to impose a 10 percent tariff on several European countries if no agreement on purchasing the island is reached.
For many Greenlanders, discussions about transferring their territory under U.S. control are seen as a “complete insult”.
“The discussion about taking control of our territory by the United States is a complete insult.”
– Inuk Silis Høegh, Greenlandic filmmaker
Thousands of Greenlanders took to the streets over the weekend to protest Trump’s calls, while Danish towns also saw protest activity.
Why is Greenland so important? It combines three key factors: geopolitical proximity to the United States and Europe, abundant natural resources, and potential sea routes through Arctic waters.
Greenland lies between the United States and Europe and is located near the so-called GIUK Gap – a narrow passage between Greenland, Iceland, and Britain that connects the Arctic with the Atlantic. Control over this stretch provides advantages in trade and security in the North Atlantic.
In its rich natural resources, notably oil, gas, and rare earth metals, lies another reason for interest, especially in the context of the growing global demand for these minerals for the production of electric cars, wind energy, and military hardware. However, melting Arctic ice potentially lowers technical barriers to extraction, while creating new environmental and logistical challenges.
The development of shipping routes in Arctic zones could affect both global trade and the security calculations of regional states. In this context, Trump had previously downplayed Greenland’s natural resources, telling reporters, “We need Greenland for national security reasons, not for its minerals.”
It is also worth noting that former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz in January 2024 emphasized that the administration’s attention is focused on critically important minerals and resources in the Arctic region.
Overall, the United States, China, and Russia are vying for influence in the Arctic, as climate change gradually shifts the region’s geopolitical map.
When did Greenland again become Trump’s focus?
A day after the United States struck Nicolás Maduro, Trump repeated his statement about Greenland “from a national security perspective”.
“Greenland is covered by Russian and Chinese ships everywhere,” Trump told reporters onboard the plane, emphasizing: “We need Greenland for national security, and Denmark cannot do this.”
Following this, Trump faced a new wave of escalation: he hinted at possible tariffs for the EU in response to the absence of a deal on the island.
“We have subsidized Denmark and all EU countries and others for many years, without imposing tariffs or any other forms of compensation,” he wrote on Truth Social. “Now, after centuries, it’s time for Denmark to give up – global peace is at stake!”
It is also noted that during his first term, Trump already expressed interest in buying Greenland; the island’s response was unequivocal: “Greenland is not for sale,” but in December 2024 such discussions revived a role in world politics.
Vice President J.D. Vance visited Greenland in March 2025 and stated that U.S. policy should be open to changes in Danish leadership, but the region’s future should be decided by its people themselves.
Polls in Greenland show clear opposition to the island joining the United States. According to the surveys, a large portion of the population opposes such a plan, underscoring the topic’s sensitivity for the region.
The United States maintains a security influence in Greenland inherited from the Cold War due to its proximity to Russia, which has made the territory important for monitoring and defense capabilities. The 1951 treaty between the United States and Denmark allowed the placement of military units in the region, and its role has since diminished somewhat, but it still carries significant potential for cooperation and joint defense actions.
Previously, the United States repeatedly approached Greenland with proposals for economic development: energy, mining, tourism, and other sectors – investors see prospects in these areas, but this does not mean automatic consent by the population to any international merger.
“Tariff threats undermine transatlantic relations and threaten a dangerous downward spiral.”
– Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom
Against this backdrop, European countries are conducting joint exercises in Greenland alongside Denmark, underscoring the complexity and sensitivity of the situation between the United States and Europe.
In his remarks, Trump warned that the development of events could constitute a “very dangerous situation” for global security and stability, casting doubt on the long-term transatlantic alliance and regional cooperation.
What do Greenlanders think?
The people of Greenland express a range of views about the island’s future: many advocate preserving autonomy and loyalty to Denmark, while others consider expanding self-government powers or even independence.
In Nuuk and other towns, demonstrations were held calling for respect for sovereignty and rejection of coercive decisions from any side. One participant simply said: “We do not accept such aggression.”
Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen called U.S. rhetoric “completely unacceptable,” emphasizing that the people must determine their own future. Most citizens respond to the calls with caution, raising national flags and urging respect for their lives and choices.
Some lawmakers express more moderate positions: for example, Kuno Fenker of Naleraq noted that the president’s words may be interpreted differently, but the importance of self-determination should not be ignored.
Ultimately, the discussions continue, and Greenland’s future lies in the hands of its inhabitants, who must decide which path they want to take: preserve autonomy, strengthen ties with Denmark, or explore new formats of partnership with other countries. At the same time, the region will remain a key flashpoint between major world powers and a challenge for international diplomacy.