ANALYSIS
US President Donald Trump has described ownership of Greenland as “vital” to his planned missile defence shield, doubling down on the claim that the sprawling Danish territory is critical to US national security. But experts say Trump's costly Golden Dome can be built without seizing the world’s largest island.
Issued on: 17/01/2026
By: Sébastian SEIBT
FRANCE24
‘No idea’
Inspired by Israel’s Iron Dome missile shield, the Golden Dome is intended to block projectiles heading for US territory, including intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Trump first announced his signature project in May 2025, unveiling a $175 billion plan to build the missile shield in just three years.
Months later, the Golden Dome is still only in the planning stage, says historian Andrew Gawthorpe, a US foreign policy expert at Leiden University in the Netherlands.
“The whole thing is completely notional at this point,” he says. “They haven't awarded a single government contract to actually develop it.”
The Dome has been described as a Trumpian version of former president Ronald Reagan’s much-derided “Star Wars” programme, which was ultimately abandoned.
Its main feature is “an early-warning system based on a constellation of satellites in space”, says Matthew Powell, an air defence specialist at the University of Portsmouth.
“Interceptors” designed to shoot down incoming missiles “would also be launched from space”, adds Liviu Horovitz, a defence expert at the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (Science and Politics Foundation) in Berlin.
With the bulk of the Dome located above the Earth, Horovitz says he has “no idea why Trump thinks he needs Greenland to build this defence system”.
Maybe New York?
Gawthorpe cautions that ground infrastructure would still be a part of the missile shield, notably for communication purposes and to house some interceptor launches.
However, he adds, “it is disputed whether Greenland is actually a good place to do this”.
The Pentagon has already mapped out potential locations for establishing the Golden Dome's terrestrial infrastructure – and Greenland does not feature on the list.
“New York State has been identified as an ideal location for the US East Coast interceptor base,” notes Horovitz.
The recently rebranded US Department of War has earmarked $25 million to develop an interceptor base at Fort Drum military base in northern New York State, not far from the Canadian border.
Located further north and closer to Russia, Greenland has a potential advantage over Fort Drum, says Powell, noting that “it could allow for a slightly faster response to detect and intercept missiles”, particularly if fired from Russian soil.
Keeping Denmark in the dark
So far, Denmark has been largely accommodating towards Washington’s requests regarding Pituffik, adds Horovitz. “Copenhagen is unlikely to oppose US plans [to develop] the base in the current geopolitical context,” he says – particularly if it means avoiding a US takeover of Greenland.
That is, unless the US wants to develop its presence in Greenland without having to consult with Danish authorities.
“The Americans have always been very sensitive when it comes to sharing new military technologies,” says Powell. “It could be that they are worried about having to share information with the Danes, even though they wouldn’t have to go into details.”
Another explanation for Trump’s decision to invoke the Golden Dome is the need to persuade a deeply sceptical US public of its interest in acquiring Greenland – by force, if necessary – at the expense of a NATO ally, or indeed at the expense of the Alliance as a whole.
Only 17 percent of Americans support their president's ambition to take over the Danish territory, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll published on January 15. A mere 4 percent – including just one in 10 Republicans – said it would be a “good idea” to do so by force.
Trump is underscoring the national security argument for another reason, since it is unlikely his desire for the territory’s rare earth minerals would play as well with the public.
“Trump hopes that portraying the acquisition of Greenland as vital to American security will help to win over public opinion,” says Gawthorpe. “It’s much easier to say, ‘We need Greenland to keep Chicago safe’ than it is to say, ‘We need Greenland because it has minerals’.”
This article was translated from the original in French.
Greenland's Pituffik Space Base, already operated by the US military, could house Golden Dome infrastructure – without invading the island. © Thomas Traasdahl, AFP
President Donald Trump this week came up with another reason for the US to take ownership of Greenland, linking the move with his planned missile defence shield known as the Golden Dome.
“The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security,” Trump said in a Truth Social post on Wednesday as Danish and Greenlandic officials arrived in Washington for talks aimed at staving off a confrontation between NATO allies.
The minerals-rich island, Trump wrote, “is vital for the Golden Dome we are building”.
The US president has repeatedly stated that he will acquire the semi-autonomous Danish territory “one way or the other”, sparking bewilderment and concern in Copenhagen and across Europe.
READ MORETaking over Greenland, a long-standing US obsession
His post this week marked the first time he linked his expansionist aims to a concrete defence project – though analysts have expressed doubts that his missile defence system will ever see the light of day.
President Donald Trump this week came up with another reason for the US to take ownership of Greenland, linking the move with his planned missile defence shield known as the Golden Dome.
“The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security,” Trump said in a Truth Social post on Wednesday as Danish and Greenlandic officials arrived in Washington for talks aimed at staving off a confrontation between NATO allies.
The minerals-rich island, Trump wrote, “is vital for the Golden Dome we are building”.
The US president has repeatedly stated that he will acquire the semi-autonomous Danish territory “one way or the other”, sparking bewilderment and concern in Copenhagen and across Europe.
READ MORETaking over Greenland, a long-standing US obsession
His post this week marked the first time he linked his expansionist aims to a concrete defence project – though analysts have expressed doubts that his missile defence system will ever see the light of day.
‘No idea’
Inspired by Israel’s Iron Dome missile shield, the Golden Dome is intended to block projectiles heading for US territory, including intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Trump first announced his signature project in May 2025, unveiling a $175 billion plan to build the missile shield in just three years.
Months later, the Golden Dome is still only in the planning stage, says historian Andrew Gawthorpe, a US foreign policy expert at Leiden University in the Netherlands.
“The whole thing is completely notional at this point,” he says. “They haven't awarded a single government contract to actually develop it.”
© France 24
02:10
02:10
The Dome has been described as a Trumpian version of former president Ronald Reagan’s much-derided “Star Wars” programme, which was ultimately abandoned.
Its main feature is “an early-warning system based on a constellation of satellites in space”, says Matthew Powell, an air defence specialist at the University of Portsmouth.
“Interceptors” designed to shoot down incoming missiles “would also be launched from space”, adds Liviu Horovitz, a defence expert at the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (Science and Politics Foundation) in Berlin.
With the bulk of the Dome located above the Earth, Horovitz says he has “no idea why Trump thinks he needs Greenland to build this defence system”.
Maybe New York?
Gawthorpe cautions that ground infrastructure would still be a part of the missile shield, notably for communication purposes and to house some interceptor launches.
However, he adds, “it is disputed whether Greenland is actually a good place to do this”.
The Pentagon has already mapped out potential locations for establishing the Golden Dome's terrestrial infrastructure – and Greenland does not feature on the list.
“New York State has been identified as an ideal location for the US East Coast interceptor base,” notes Horovitz.
The recently rebranded US Department of War has earmarked $25 million to develop an interceptor base at Fort Drum military base in northern New York State, not far from the Canadian border.
Located further north and closer to Russia, Greenland has a potential advantage over Fort Drum, says Powell, noting that “it could allow for a slightly faster response to detect and intercept missiles”, particularly if fired from Russian soil.
© France 24
01:36
But the US need not acquire Greenland – a territory three times the size of Texas – to install part of the Golden Dome there.
The US already has a “space base” in the Danish territory, known as Pituffik (formerly Thule Air Base), which houses a substantial part of the US military’s global network of missile warning sensors.
The US also retains the right to expand its military presence.
“A 1951 agreement between the US and Denmark, which was revised in 2004, allows Washington to develop the base as it deems necessary, provided it has the agreement of Denmark and Greenland,” says Gawthorpe.
US officials are reportedly already allocating tens of millions of dollars into upgrading the facility based on current agreements with local authorities. At least 150 US military troops are still stationed at Pituffik along with Danish, Greenlandic and Canadian military personnel and contractors.
01:36
But the US need not acquire Greenland – a territory three times the size of Texas – to install part of the Golden Dome there.
The US already has a “space base” in the Danish territory, known as Pituffik (formerly Thule Air Base), which houses a substantial part of the US military’s global network of missile warning sensors.
The US also retains the right to expand its military presence.
“A 1951 agreement between the US and Denmark, which was revised in 2004, allows Washington to develop the base as it deems necessary, provided it has the agreement of Denmark and Greenland,” says Gawthorpe.
US officials are reportedly already allocating tens of millions of dollars into upgrading the facility based on current agreements with local authorities. At least 150 US military troops are still stationed at Pituffik along with Danish, Greenlandic and Canadian military personnel and contractors.
Keeping Denmark in the dark
So far, Denmark has been largely accommodating towards Washington’s requests regarding Pituffik, adds Horovitz. “Copenhagen is unlikely to oppose US plans [to develop] the base in the current geopolitical context,” he says – particularly if it means avoiding a US takeover of Greenland.
That is, unless the US wants to develop its presence in Greenland without having to consult with Danish authorities.
“The Americans have always been very sensitive when it comes to sharing new military technologies,” says Powell. “It could be that they are worried about having to share information with the Danes, even though they wouldn’t have to go into details.”
Another explanation for Trump’s decision to invoke the Golden Dome is the need to persuade a deeply sceptical US public of its interest in acquiring Greenland – by force, if necessary – at the expense of a NATO ally, or indeed at the expense of the Alliance as a whole.
Only 17 percent of Americans support their president's ambition to take over the Danish territory, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll published on January 15. A mere 4 percent – including just one in 10 Republicans – said it would be a “good idea” to do so by force.
Trump is underscoring the national security argument for another reason, since it is unlikely his desire for the territory’s rare earth minerals would play as well with the public.
“Trump hopes that portraying the acquisition of Greenland as vital to American security will help to win over public opinion,” says Gawthorpe. “It’s much easier to say, ‘We need Greenland to keep Chicago safe’ than it is to say, ‘We need Greenland because it has minerals’.”
This article was translated from the original in French.
No comments:
Post a Comment