Remarks by US President Donald Trump claiming that the United States “needs” Greenland for defence have triggered sharp reactions from both Denmark and Greenland, reopening an old geopolitical fault line in the Arctic. Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen categorically rejected any suggestion of annexation, underlining that Greenland is not for sale and that sovereignty within the Danish Kingdom is non-negotiable. The episode reflects not just rhetorical excess, but deeper shifts in Arctic geopolitics, great-power rivalry, and the evolving meaning of sovereignty in a strategic region.
Why Greenland Matters to the United States
American interest in Greenland is primarily geostrategic. Located between North America and Europe, the Arctic island occupies a critical position along potential missile trajectories from Russia, China, or even North Korea. The US already operates the Pituffik Space Base (earlier Thule Air Base) in Greenland, which plays a central role in missile early-warning systems and space surveillance.
Beyond military logic, Greenland’s relevance has grown as climate change opens up the Arctic. Melting ice is making sea routes and mineral resources more accessible. Greenland possesses significant reserves of rare earth elements, crucial for electric vehicles, electronics, and defence technologies—an area currently dominated by China. This combination of security and resource considerations explains why Washington sees Greenland as a strategic asset rather than a distant territory.
A Long History of American Interest
US curiosity about Greenland is not new. As early as 1867, the US State Department described the island as strategically valuable. During World War II, American forces occupied Greenland after Nazi Germany took control of Denmark, and the US retained a military presence there even after the war.
In 1946, President Harry S Truman formally offered Denmark $100 million to purchase Greenland. While Copenhagen rejected the offer, a 1951 defence agreement allowed the US to build and maintain military bases on the island. Trump revived this transactional logic during his first term, describing Greenland as a “large real estate deal,” a comment that Denmark dismissed as absurd and diplomatically offensive.
Why Denmark and Greenland Are Alarmed
Recent developments have heightened concerns in Copenhagen and Nuuk. Trump’s statements come in the backdrop of aggressive US actions elsewhere, including the removal of Venezuelan leader , reinforcing fears that sovereignty norms are being weakened.
Investigative reports by Denmark’s public broadcaster DR alleged covert US influence operations in Greenland, aimed at cultivating pro-annexation or secessionist sentiment. These reports pointed to informal networks, political outreach, and pressure campaigns targeting Greenlandic elites and citizens. Denmark’s intelligence agency, PET, has acknowledged that Greenland is vulnerable to foreign influence operations, given its small population and strategic importance.
For Greenland, which enjoys autonomous status within the Danish Kingdom, the issue is particularly sensitive. While debates over independence already exist, external interference risks distorting domestic political choices and undermining self-determination.
The Arctic in Great-Power Competition
The Greenland controversy must also be seen in the context of growing Arctic militarisation. Russia has expanded its military footprint across the Arctic, while China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and invested in polar research and infrastructure. For the US, controlling strategic choke points and denying space to rivals has become a priority.
However, the manner in which these objectives are pursued matters. Threats of force or annexation risk alienating allies and undermining the very rules-based order that the US claims to defend.
Has the US Bought Territory Before?
Historically, the US has expanded through territorial purchases. The Louisiana Purchase of 1803, the acquisition of Alaska from Russia in 1867, and the purchase of the Danish West Indies (now the US Virgin Islands) in 1917 are prominent examples. Yet these occurred in very different international contexts, before the modern norms of sovereignty, self-determination, and international law were firmly established.
Applying 19th-century precedents to 21st-century geopolitics ignores the legal and normative constraints that now govern state behaviour.
What to Note for Prelims?
- Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark.
- The US operates the Pituffik Space Base in Greenland.
- Greenland has reserves of rare earth minerals.
- The Arctic is emerging as a zone of strategic competition.
What to Note for Mains?
- Changing geopolitics of the Arctic region.
- Sovereignty, self-determination, and great-power behaviour.
- Impact of climate change on strategic competition.
- Limits of coercive diplomacy in alliance management.
