Trump's Greenland Flirt is Clumsy Arctic Geopolitics

The Royal Danish Navy frigate HDMS Triton passes an iceberg in the waters around Greenland. Photo: NATO

Incoming President Trump’s interest in Greenland is neither accidental nor particularly surprising. However, the way he expresses it is more show business than diplomatic prowess.

During Trump’s first term (2017-2021), someone must have whispered to him about great power rivalry in the Arctic. Suddenly, in 2019, he expressed interest in buying Greenland. Fear of China was the underlying motivation.

The idea was ridiculed and decisively rejected by both the Greenlandic self-government and the Danish government.

That Trump not only repeats the idea in 2025 but also hints at the use of power to get his way is, at best, a clumsy approach to Arctic geopolitics. At worst, it’s a direct threat to Western unity and liberal principles.

Greenland’s Strategic Role

Greenland is a country, but not an independent state. Originally, the Norse settlements in Greenland were part of Norway, and thus also joined as part of Denmark-Norway from 1380 onwards. When Norway achieved independence in 1814, Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands remained under Danish control.

Today, Greenland is still part of the Kingdom of Denmark (“Rigsfællesskabet”), but enjoys extensive autonomy and can decide on many policy areas without interference from Copenhagen. Greenland, for example, left the EU in 1985, while Denmark remains in the Union.

Greenland is also important to the USA. Geographically, the world’s largest island is part of the North American continent and thus a piece in the North American defense system. The USA has therefore had the military base “Pituffik” (formerly “Thule”) in the far northwest of the island since 1951.

Today, the presence is part of the US Space Force and central for monitoring missile and space activity. The island could also become an important link in maintaining supply lines from the US East Coast to Northern Europe.

The USA looks to the Arctic

Trump’s interest in Greenland is linked to his, and the US’, increased interest in the Arctic. During Trump’s first term, climate concerns and cooperation in the North were downplayed. Instead, the Trump administration used the Arctic to highlight how Russian and Chinese expansionism had to be stopped. In particular, China’s growing interest in the Arctic has led to a new and more forward-leaning US Arctic security policy.

Historically, despite being a superpower, the US presence and capabilities in its part of the Arctic – northern Alaska – have not been prioritized. The historic lack of investment and commitment means that the American Arctic is an area where Trump can easily score points. Being seen as decisive and putting American interests first (“America First”) – despite concerns in Copenhagen – plays into this.

The interest in Arctic affairs and concerns over great power rivalry did not change with Biden as President, although the tone and rhetoric became more nuanced and subtle. The appointment of Mike Sfraga as the first US Arctic Ambassador-at-large speaks to this.

Still, last summer, the Pentagon presented a new security strategy for the Arctic in response to the changing geopolitical situation after Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The first country discussed is not Russia, however, which is undoubtedly the primary Arctic security threat in the North, but China – a non-Arctic state.

Buying and Selling Territory

Greenland thus becomes a pawn in Trump’s interest in Arctic geopolitics. At the same time, in a US geopolitical perspective, Greenland’s strategic or economic value should not be overestimated. It is a long way from Nuuk to Russia, and even further to China.

Also, China’s interest in mining on the island never materialized. If shipping increases across the Arctic Ocean, Greenland will probably not become a central part of that activity (unlike Svalbard, for example). Crucially, the US does not need to “own” Greenland to invest in critical minerals or use military bases.

The incoming National Security advisor Mike Waltz’s remarks that in the Arctic “Russia is trying to become king” and that the US interest is about “oil and gas, national security, critical minerals” misses the boat. Arctic economic potential and related geopolitics are much more nuanced and complex.

Trump and his advisors are surely also fully aware that Greenland is not for sale and that their statements cause outrage in both Copenhagen and Nuuk (the situation was different when the USA bought Alaska from Russia in 1857 for a modest sum).

Instead, this move exemplifies Trump’s rather peculiar approach to foreign policy and diplomacy. Regarding everything from the Panama Canal to the war in Ukraine, Trump makes loud promises and threats. It may seem like he’s shooting from the hip. But this is a negotiating tactic based on uncertainty and unpredictability.

The problem is that this is not a business deal waiting to happen. This is international relations and global diplomacy. The other parties are countries, and what is being discussed is the sovereign territory of another state.

But What Does Greenland Want?

From a Greenlandic perspective, other interests are at stake. The dream of independence lives on, but it is not shared by everyone. Independence also raises a number of questions. Who will cover the budget deficit needed to run services for the 57,000 inhabitants of the island? Who will be responsible for defense?

The relationship between Copenhagen and Nuuk has not always been good, and discussions about independence from the Kingdom come up regularly. This has intensified as interest in the Arctic has increased. Some are also pointing to disinterest and a lack of understanding of Greenlandic and Arctic issues in Copenhagen. The US intervention in this domestic political issue is fuel on the fire.

Greenland is unlikely to become part of the USA. But if some form of independence materialises, closer economic and military cooperation with both Canada and the USA could be a natural development. The central question here, however, is not what Donald Trump wants, but what the Greenlandic people want.

A Worrying Sign of Things to Come

Trump’s approach is also counterproductive if the USA truly wants to cultivate Greenlandic independence and closer ties. By sending his son Eric on a four-hour “holiday trip” to Nuuk and simultaneously threatening to use force to get his way, Trump created a negative backlash in both Greenland and Copenhagen. Thus, Trump contributes to unrest in the relationship with Denmark, which is, after all, a close ally and a central country both amongst the Nordics and in the European Union.

The hint of using measures such as economic sanctions or even military presence is even more serious. If, in the worst case, the USA actually uses such tactics to force through a deal that benefits the USA, it will undermine both the NATO alliance and the liberal Western world order that the USA benefits from.

If this will be the new US approach to international relations, including dealings with close neighbours and allies, we are in for a rough four years. Great power rivalry and geopolitics require diplomacy and a strategic game of chess. Trump, on the other hand, is playing dodgeball.