Donald Trump’s longstanding threats to seize control of Greenland have reached a peak this week. On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that Trump is evaluating various approaches to gain the territory, adding that “using the U.S. military is always an option available to the commander-in-chief.”
But foreign policy experts note that Danish officials are confused by Trump’s threats of military intervention to take control of Greenland, given an existing long-term agreement that permits the U.S. to expand its military footprint there. Back in 1951, the U.S. and Denmark struck a deal allowing the U.S. “to enhance and adapt the region for military purposes” in Greenland and “build, set up, maintain, and run facilities and equipment” there.
“This agreement is extremely generous and flexible,” Mikkel Runge Olesen, a senior researcher at Copenhagen’s Danish Institute for International Studies, told . “Under this pact, the U.S. could accomplish nearly any security objective one might think of.”
“Considering the broad scope of the agreement, it’s hard to see why the U.S. would need to take over Greenland right now,” Olesen further commented.
While Trump’s interest in Greenland has marked both of his terms in office (in 2019, his plan to purchase the self-governing Danish territory was quickly rejected by Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen), global leaders are taking his latest focus on the island more seriously. After the U.S. military’s , Trump has asserted expanded imperial authority via what he calls the “,” referencing the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine—a foreign policy that warned European nations against meddling in the Western Hemisphere.
Greenland—covered in ice and home to 56,000 mostly Inuit residents—has become due to its position above the Arctic Circle, which grants access to naval and shipping routes. Along with its plentiful rare earth metals, the territory is coveted by Trump, who wants to secure it not only for its natural resource wealth but also because he claims have established themselves in the Arctic region.
Long-standing U.S.-Danish ties
The U.S. has maintained a presence in Greenland for over 80 years, a relationship central to its growing ties with Denmark and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). During World War II, Henrik Kauffmann, Denmark’s ambassador to the U.S., defied his Nazi-occupied government and negotiated a deal with the U.S. to grant it access to Greenland. A U.S. military presence there would stop Nazi forces from using the island as a link between Europe and North America.
The agreement, initially set to end after the war, was strengthened instead by NATO’s formation in 1949, which required the U.S. to defend Europe against Soviet aggression. A 1951 pact reaffirmed the U.S.’ right to set up defense zones in Greenland, and its validity depends on NATO’s ongoing existence. In 2004, the agreement was revised to include Greenland— which gained partial self-rule in 1979—as a signatory.
Today, the U.S. operates just one military base in Greenland—the Pituffik Space Base—down from roughly 50 at the Cold War’s peak. However, if the U.S. wishes to expand its footprint there for national security purposes (as Trump has proposed), it would need to negotiate with Denmark and Greenland, Olesen explained. These talks have historically been amicable.
“In practice, Danish and Greenlandic authorities have typically viewed U.S. security requests in Greenland with great goodwill and openness,” he noted.
Citing the 1951 agreement, Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen urged the Trump administration to cease its talk of seizing Greenland.
“We already have a defense agreement between the Kingdom of Denmark and the United States that grants the U.S. broad access to Greenland,” Frederiksen stated over the weekend. “I therefore strongly urge the U.S. to halt threats against a longstanding close ally, as well as against another territory and its people—who have clearly stated they are not for sale.”
Trump’s motivations for taking Greenland
Garret Martin, a lecturer and co-director of American University’s Transatlantic Policy Center, theorizes that Trump’s refusal to acknowledge the 1951 agreement—opting instead for military threats or purchase offers (despite Danish officials repeatedly stating )—is an extension of the 19th-century “gunboat diplomacy” approach he used with Venezuela.
Regarding Greenland, Trump may be trying to send Denmark a message that the U.S. has significant military capabilities it is prepared to use.
“Trump sees the U.S. as leverage—and often emphasizes this point strongly,” Martin told . “He might be trying to tell Denmark: ‘You’re in a weak position. Greenland essentially relies on us. Why should we have to follow those formalities when we’re the main player here?’”
Trump’s tactics may also stem from a desire to claim the rare earth metals hidden beneath Greenland’s ice. This has grown more urgent for Trump as China of the rare earth metals the world relies on.
Anthony Marchese, chairman of Texas Mineral Resources Corporation, earlier this week that the president’s goal of mining those rare earths is almost a fantasy. Greenland’s northern region is only mineable six months a year due to harsh weather, and costly mining equipment must withstand months in that frigid environment.
“If you’re planning to mine Greenland’s minerals, you’re looking at billions upon billions of dollars and an extremely long timeline before any results materialize,” he stated.
Olesen notes that Trump’s interest in rare earths and his national security concerns can be resolved through negotiations with Danish and Greenlandic officials, reducing their urgency. The problem arises if Trump’s primary motivation for moving into Greenland is a symbolic display of military strength rather than specific demands that can be addressed diplomatically.
“Territorial expansion is not something you can easily compromise on,” Olesen observed.