A “fundamental disagreement” persists. This was the only concrete outcome of the meeting at the White House between US, Danish and Greenlandic officials on January 14, as each side maintained its original position on Greenland’s sovereignty. The Trump Administration argued that the US has to take direct control of the island, while both Danish and Greenlandic officials firmly rejected the idea.
This was perhaps to be expected. The recently released US National Security Strategy made one thing very clear: US foreign policy is now defined by an assertive approach towards the entire Western Hemisphere. Washington claims the right to intervene in other countries’ domestic affairs – even militarily, if necessary – in order to guarantee US strategic and corporate interests.
This new “Donroe Doctrine” is a revamped version of the gunboat diplomacy that shaped US foreign policy towards Latin America (and the Asia-Pacific region) in the early 20th century.
Trump wants Greenland
Trump has repeatedly said that the US needs to assume direct control of Greenland for reasons of “national security”. White House social media now regularly features posts about the US taking control of the island, but Trump has been rattling the sabre for some time: “We’ll get it, one way or the other”, he said in a February 2025 speech to Congress. His appointment of the current Governor of Louisiana, Jeff Landry, as special envoy for Greenland in December 2025 confirmed this course of action.
For Trump, Greenland is strategically vital. Although scarcely populated, the island is potentially rich in raw materials, including critical rare earth minerals. This makes it a target for US tech giants.
It also fits neatly into his idea of an imperial United States, along with the bizarre proposal of making Canada the 51st US state and the hotly contested renaming of the Gulf of Mexico as “Gulf of America”.
As part of his national security rhetoric, Trump has claimed that Chinese and Russian vessels are “all over” Greenland. However, high-level Nordic officials with access to Nato intelligence have publicly and explicitly stated that there are no records of this in recent years.
Geographically, Greenland is North America’s gateway to the Arctic. Climate change has made the region increasingly easy to navigate, and it is expected to become a theatre of strong competition between the world’s largest powers.
.jpeg)
Danish and European response
European policymakers have started to take Trump’s words seriously, and rightly so: in this second term he’s demonstrating that he wants – and at times is able – to align words (even the most radical and extreme ones) with political action. Despite being part of Denmark, which is a Nato ally and member of the European Union, Greenland looks like easy prey.
The autonomous Greenlandic government has repeatedly stated, both before and after the January 14 meeting, that they do not want to be annexed by the US. After long pursuing mediation and a low-profile approach, Denmark’s Prime Minister has also taken a firm line, now supported by other European partners and the UK.
The EU Commission, for its part, has been hesitant, voicing solidarity with Denmark and Greenland but being disappointingly ambiguous when it comes to concrete security commitments. In contrast, the Danish government has opted to expand its military presence in the region. It has launched “Operation Arctic Endurance” in close cooperation with allies including France, Germany, Norway and Sweden. Finland and the Netherlands are still evaluating the Danish proposal.
From a military perspective, this is largely a symbolic move, but politically, it has tremendous relevance, as it signals an extraordinary new low for transatlantic relations. European troops are now landing in Greenland to defend it against a real threat posed not by Russia or China, but by the US, their decades-long security partner.
Three possible outcomes
Given the ongoing circumstances, it seems there are three possible ways to break the standoff.
The first is Trump scaling back, renouncing his plan to “get Greenland”, and respecting the status quo. This is very unlikely: the President’s vocal escalation has already reached a point of no return, and he’s now in the position where he needs to sell the Greenland issue to his electorate as a historic victory.
The second option is, therefore, military occupation. This is goverened by the game theory logic of “chicken”. US armed forces are larger, much more prepared to fight, and supported by an Administration that has already demonstrated they can use force deliberately and unilaterally – with or without the approval of Congress as the US Constitution prescribes. In the moment of truth, Trump may think, Europeans will get scared and retreat.
This is the worst-case scenario, which could lead to the end of Nato. It may also trigger a domino effect of deteriorating relations, which could threaten EU unity.
It’s true that Trump may be tempted to continue with his erratic, “might makes right” approach (which some analysts have colourfully dubbed the “Fuck Around and Find Out” strategy). However, he might also be reined in by mounting concerns within his own party, such as those recently expressed by powerful Republican Senator Mitch McConnell.
The third possibility is negotiating a compromise that benefits both sides. The US and Denmark could revise their 1951 bilateral agreement and, this way, provide Washington with an expanded military presence in the island (such as, for instance, permission to build up a base for US nuclear submarines) along with a special concession for mining rights. Simultaneously, Denmark and other Nato allies would pledge to increase their military presence in Greenland and the whole of the Arctic.
Nato’s Secretary General, Mark Rutte, is said to be actively working on this outcome. It would be a win-win, and highly welcome, solution.
