Trump Vows to ‘Do Something’ With Greenland ‘Whether They Like It or Not’
The Trump administration has been ratcheting up threats against Europe in the wake of its invasion of Venezuela and the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro.
President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with US oil companies executives in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC on January 9, 2026.
(Photo by Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
Brad Reed
Jan 09, 2026
C0MMON DREAMS
President Donald Trump finished up a busy week by once again leveling threats against longtime allies over their refusal to hand Greenland over to US control.
While taking questions from reporters at the White House on Friday, Trump was asked about a reported plan to win over Greenlanders on joining the US by giving them annual $10,000 payments.
“I’m not talking about money for Greenland yet,” the president replied. “I might talk about that, but right now we are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not.”
Trump then explained his purported rationale for making Greenland a US territory.
“If we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland,” he said. “And we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor.”
Neither Russia nor China have shown any indication that they want to take over Greenland, which is currently a self-governed Danish territory. Because Denmark is a founding member of NATO, an attack on its territory from Russia or China would trigger a counterattack by all other NATO members, theoretically including the US.
Trump then informed the press that he would “like to make a deal the easy way” to acquire Greenland, before adding that “if we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way.”
The president then claimed that he was a “fan of Denmark,” even though seconds ago he hinted at using military force to seize their territory.
“The fact that they had a boat land there 500 years ago doesn’t mean that they own the land,” Trump said. “I’m sure we had lots of boats go there also.”
The Trump administration has been ratcheting up threats against Europe in the wake of its invasion of Venezuela and the US abduction of President Nicolás Maduro last week.
Top Trump aide Stephen Miller on Monday refused to rule out using the military to take Greenland, telling CNN host Jake Tapper that “we live in a world... that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power.”
President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting with US oil companies executives in the East Room of the White House in Washington, DC on January 9, 2026.
(Photo by Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images)
Jan 09, 2026
C0MMON DREAMS
President Donald Trump finished up a busy week by once again leveling threats against longtime allies over their refusal to hand Greenland over to US control.
While taking questions from reporters at the White House on Friday, Trump was asked about a reported plan to win over Greenlanders on joining the US by giving them annual $10,000 payments.
“I’m not talking about money for Greenland yet,” the president replied. “I might talk about that, but right now we are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not.”
Trump then explained his purported rationale for making Greenland a US territory.
“If we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland,” he said. “And we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor.”
Neither Russia nor China have shown any indication that they want to take over Greenland, which is currently a self-governed Danish territory. Because Denmark is a founding member of NATO, an attack on its territory from Russia or China would trigger a counterattack by all other NATO members, theoretically including the US.
Trump then informed the press that he would “like to make a deal the easy way” to acquire Greenland, before adding that “if we don’t do it the easy way, we’re going to do it the hard way.”
The president then claimed that he was a “fan of Denmark,” even though seconds ago he hinted at using military force to seize their territory.
“The fact that they had a boat land there 500 years ago doesn’t mean that they own the land,” Trump said. “I’m sure we had lots of boats go there also.”
The Trump administration has been ratcheting up threats against Europe in the wake of its invasion of Venezuela and the US abduction of President Nicolás Maduro last week.
Top Trump aide Stephen Miller on Monday refused to rule out using the military to take Greenland, telling CNN host Jake Tapper that “we live in a world... that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power.”
Trump floats shocking new excuse for taking Greenland
Nicole Charky-Chami
January 9, 2026 RAW STORY
President Donald Trump reacts to a question about the the fatal shooting in Minnesota, in which a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent fatally shot Renee Nicole Good, as he attends a meeting with oil industry executives, at the White House in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 9, 2026. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
President Donald Trump dropped a stunning new excuse for why the United States should take over Greenland Friday.
Trump was meeting with American oil executives over the military incursion of Venezuela and his goals to shift the country's oil production to benefit the U.S. when a reporter asked about Venezuela and if the country would be considered an ally.
"Right now they seem to be an ally and I think it'll continue to be an ally," Trump said. "We don't want to have Russia there. We don't want to have China there. And by the way, we don't want Russia or China going to Greenland, which if we don't take Greenland, you're going to have Russia or China as your next door neighbor. That's not going to happen."
Nicole Charky-Chami
January 9, 2026
President Donald Trump reacts to a question about the the fatal shooting in Minnesota, in which a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent fatally shot Renee Nicole Good, as he attends a meeting with oil industry executives, at the White House in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 9, 2026. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
President Donald Trump dropped a stunning new excuse for why the United States should take over Greenland Friday.
Trump was meeting with American oil executives over the military incursion of Venezuela and his goals to shift the country's oil production to benefit the U.S. when a reporter asked about Venezuela and if the country would be considered an ally.
"Right now they seem to be an ally and I think it'll continue to be an ally," Trump said. "We don't want to have Russia there. We don't want to have China there. And by the way, we don't want Russia or China going to Greenland, which if we don't take Greenland, you're going to have Russia or China as your next door neighbor. That's not going to happen."
'It would snap our threads': Veteran offers grim prediction about Trump Greenland invasion
Ewan Gleadow
January 9, 2026 RAW STORY
A general view shows Nuuk in Greenland, February 5, 2025. REUTERS/Sarah Meyssonnier
A proposed military action against Greenland would "crumble alliance" with NATO nations and spells disaster for public approval, a veteran has warned.
The White House has suggested acquiring Greenland is a matter of national security, and that they would move to take over the country. This has been met with opposition from both Greenland's officials and Danish members of parliament. Donald Trump and members of the administration are keen to take the country into their possession for matters of national security.
But an Iraq War veteran believes sentiment for the war would be broadly negative, with a "disillusioned" public turning on the administration more than they already have.
Problems could also come with the damage an invasion of Greenland does to NATO members. Patrick Murphy, who served as the 32nd Under Secretary of the U.S. Army and is an Iraq War combat veteran, said a military operation in Greenland would be a point of no return for the US.
He told The Mirror US, "A military takeover of Greenland is certainly possible. But it's absolutely not practical. Military action would put the most strain on Article 5 since the creation of NATO, and it would effectively crumble our alliance. It would snap our last threads of allyship with European nations, and they're our strongest allies."
NATO, the North Atlantic treaty Organization, has 32 member states, 30 of which are in Europe. Article 5 of NATO states that an armed attack against one NATO member is an attack against all.
While military action in Greenland would need congressional approval, it has not stopped some from worrying about how the public mood would turn should such a strike happen.
Murphy said, "I'm hoping this is just irresponsible rhetoric. I hope and pray that America goes back to our roots as a reluctant warrior who honors our NATO commitments with our closest allies."
"The American people are fatigued of conflict abroad and would be further disillusioned by conflict with one of our historic allies." He added that "a majority of Americans understand that Europeans are [our] closest and most reliable allies in this world."
Ewan Gleadow
January 9, 2026
A general view shows Nuuk in Greenland, February 5, 2025. REUTERS/Sarah Meyssonnier
A proposed military action against Greenland would "crumble alliance" with NATO nations and spells disaster for public approval, a veteran has warned.
The White House has suggested acquiring Greenland is a matter of national security, and that they would move to take over the country. This has been met with opposition from both Greenland's officials and Danish members of parliament. Donald Trump and members of the administration are keen to take the country into their possession for matters of national security.
But an Iraq War veteran believes sentiment for the war would be broadly negative, with a "disillusioned" public turning on the administration more than they already have.
Problems could also come with the damage an invasion of Greenland does to NATO members. Patrick Murphy, who served as the 32nd Under Secretary of the U.S. Army and is an Iraq War combat veteran, said a military operation in Greenland would be a point of no return for the US.
He told The Mirror US, "A military takeover of Greenland is certainly possible. But it's absolutely not practical. Military action would put the most strain on Article 5 since the creation of NATO, and it would effectively crumble our alliance. It would snap our last threads of allyship with European nations, and they're our strongest allies."
NATO, the North Atlantic treaty Organization, has 32 member states, 30 of which are in Europe. Article 5 of NATO states that an armed attack against one NATO member is an attack against all.
While military action in Greenland would need congressional approval, it has not stopped some from worrying about how the public mood would turn should such a strike happen.
Murphy said, "I'm hoping this is just irresponsible rhetoric. I hope and pray that America goes back to our roots as a reluctant warrior who honors our NATO commitments with our closest allies."
"The American people are fatigued of conflict abroad and would be further disillusioned by conflict with one of our historic allies." He added that "a majority of Americans understand that Europeans are [our] closest and most reliable allies in this world."
'It may be a choice' between NATO and Greenland, Trump says
In an interview published on Thursday, Trump also suggested that NATO is toothless without the US, claiming his own morality guided his decisions on US military actions.
US President Donald Trump said on Thursday that "it may be a choice" for Washington if it were to pick between controlling Greenland and maintaining the NATO alliance, amid a renewed push to acquire the island in the Arctic Circle.
Trump also hinted that the alliance would be toothless without the US.
“I think we’ll always get along with Europe, but I want them to shape up," he said. "If you look at NATO, Russia I can tell you is not at all concerned with any other country but us.”
Speaking days after ordering the operation that removed Venezuela's Nicolás Maduro and issuing threats against multiple nations, Trump said in an interview with the New York Times that his personal sense of right and wrong provides the sole limitation on his authority to deploy US military force globally.
"My own morality, my own mind (is) the only thing that can stop me," Trump said when questioned about constraints on his global military powers.
"I don't need international law," Trump said in an interview with the New York Times, before adding "I do" need to follow it but suggesting the definition remains unclear.
"I'm not looking to hurt people," he pointed out.
Despite describing himself as a "peace president" and expressing interest in the Nobel Prize, Trump has authorised military strikes in Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, Yemen and Venezuela since beginning his second term.
Following Maduro's capture, Trump has issued warnings to Colombia and renewed demands for Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, which is part of the NATO alliance.
Trump, who built his wealth through property development, said US control of Greenland represents "what I feel is psychologically needed for success."
Both Denmark and Greenland's governments reject Trump's proposals to purchase or seize the island.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said this week that a military attempt at taking Greenland would mark the end of NATO.
"Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland," the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the UK and Denmark said in a joint statement this week.
Mining, climate and smokescreens: What's driving Trump's interest in Greenland?
Experts warn that Trump could exploit Greenland for its critical mineral resources, which are seen as “essential” for green energy.
Trump’s growing interest in Greenland has highlighted the nation’s largely untapped mineral resources, which many experts argue are key to phasing out fossil fuels.
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), critical minerals are “essential” for transitioning to a green energy future – used for technologies such as wind turbines and electric vehicles (EVs).
Acquiring Greenland may help the US reduce its dependency on China, but is Trump’s plan really that simple?
Greenland’s critical minerals
A 2023 survey found that 25 of the 34 minerals deemed “critical raw materials” by the European Commission were found in Greenland. The nation is estimated to hold between 36 and 42 million metric tons of rare earth oxides, making it the second-largest reserve after China.
The IEA says that lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and graphite are “crucial” for battery performance, while rare earth elements are used to make powerful magnets found in wind turbines and EV motors. Electricity networks also need huge amounts of aluminium and copper.
The global rare earth elements market is growing in tandem with the green energy boom and is expected to be worth over €6.5 billion this year. It makes the autonomous island particularly appealing to the US, which is 100 per cent reliant on imports for 12 minerals deemed critical for the economy and national security by the US Geological Survey
Tapping into these resources could help the US reduce its dependency on China, which currently processes over 90 per cent of the world’s rare earth minerals, and empower the US as demand rises.
According to the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the US “cannot preserve” its leadership in national security, economic competitiveness or energy resilience while remaining dependent on foreign adversaries for critical minerals.
It’s a problem Trump has been trying to tackle since his first time in office. In March 2025, he signed an executive order to take “immediate measures” to increase American mineral production to the “maximum possible extent”.
The POTUS used the Defense Production Act to provide loans to boost the domestic mining industry and cut the red tape stalling projects. It also allowed federal agencies to prioritise federal lands for mining over other uses.
Last year, Trump also signed an executive order aimed at stepping up deep-sea mining within both US and international waters as his country races to become what it describes as a “global leader in responsible seabed mineral exploitation”.
Just last month, the US Department of State struck a deal with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which holds more than 70 per cent of the world’s cobalt. The partnership will increase the level of US private sector investment in the mining sector while upholding “responsible stewardship” in the management of mineral resources.
Does Trump want to mine in Greenland?
Greenland currently lacks the infrastructure needed to support industrial-scale mining. Due to its harsh climate, it is also only mineable for six months out of the year.
Analysts estimate that extracting Greenland’s minerals would therefore cost “billions upon billions upon billions” and would be a logistical nightmare.
As Nick Bæk Heilmann, a senior associate at Kaya Partners, a business consultancy operating in Greenland, points out, Greenland isn’t the only nation sitting on critical minerals.
“I would strongly argue that minerals are not the driving force in the US quest for control and acquisition of Greenland,” he says. “That’s because Greenland is open for investments and mining. In Greenland there’s general social licence to mine, which is very important. The US does not need to acquire Greenland.”
Critical minerals also sell at “extremely low prices”, which Heilmann argues quashes the business case.
Are critical minerals needed to meet climate goals?
The demand for critical minerals has triggered concern from climate groups around the ethical and environmental impacts of mining, both on land and on the seabed.
Trump has also moved to accelerate deep-sea mining. In April 2025, he signed an executive order instructing the Secretary of Commerce to “expedite the process for reviewing and issuing seabed mineral exploration licences and commercial recovery permits in areas beyond national jurisdiction under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act”.
It means the US has side-stepped ongoing talks with the UN’s International Seabed Authority (ISA), which has agreed a moratorium on seabed mining pending negotiations.
Last month, Norway postponed its plans to dig up the seabed in search of critical minerals, after becoming the first country in the world to greenlight the practice.
Still, the country has allowed for around 280,000 square metres of its national waters – located between Svalbard, Greenland and Iceland – to eventually be opened to collect rocks containing cobalt and zinc.
Norway has long echoed the argument that these minerals are needed to lead a “green transition”. However, a 2024 report published by the Environmental Justice Foundation found that deep-sea mining isn’t necessary for a fossil fuel-free world.
It predicts that a combination of new technology, a circular economy and recycling could cut demand for minerals by 58 per cent between 2022 and 2050.
The foundation’s CEO and founder, Steve Trent, says deep-sea mining is a pursuit of minerals we don’t actually need that risks environmental damage “we can’t afford”.
“We know so little about the deep ocean, but we know enough to be sure that mining it will wipe out unique wildlife, disturb the world’s largest carbon store, and do nothing to speed the transition to clean economies,” he adds.
A smokescreen for other plans?
Experts caution against interpreting Trump’s interest in Greenland primarily through the lens of climate policy or the green transition
They argue that, while these critical minerals have featured prominently in US rhetoric, they are not the key driver behind POTUS’s renewed focus on the country.
“This leaves the last, maybe most scary, important driver, which is the expansion of US territory, the idea of manifest destiny, which was also mentioned in Trump’s speech,” Heilmann says.
“We are increasingly convinced that this is the main driver, which is, for Greenland, Denmark, the EU - non-negotiable.”
Others stress that while climate policy may not motivate Trump personally, environmental change is reshaping the strategic context in which decisions are being made.
Jakob Dreyer, a researcher in climate and security politics at the University of Copenhagen, argues that global warming and the green transition are altering the economic logic of the Arctic.
“We cannot fully understand this dynamic without regarding global warming and the impact of the green transition on the global economy,” he explains. With the Arctic warming three to four times faster than the global average, rising temperatures could open new shipping routes and lower barriers to extraction as Greenland’s ice sheets melt.
Ultimately, this is, as Dreyer points out, “improving the business case” for both fossil fuel and critical raw material extraction.
“Trump is sceptical about climate change,” he adds, “but his advisers are not.”
'Appalling' and 'nonsense': Republicans push back against Trump’s Greenland plans
Copyright AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib
Donald Trump’s proposal to take control of Greenland faces opposition not just in Europe, but in the US – even in Trump’s own Republican Party.
It seems European leaders frantically trying to find ways to save Greenland from Donald Trump can hope for support from the US Congress. Over the past several days, opposition to the White House’s threats to seize the Danish territory has been growing on both sides of the aisle.
While it comes as no surprise that Democrats have largely condemned Trump's designs on Greenland, particularly any use of military force to seize the island, the fact that even leading Republicans are publicly breaking with their president on this issue is highly unusual.
With the November midterm elections coming into focus, this rare show of dissent underscores how seriously Congressional Republicans view the situation.
“This is appalling," Republican Congressman Don Bacon said in a TV interview. "Greenland is a NATO ally. Denmark is one of our best friends… so the way we’re treating them is really demeaning and it has no upside.”
Referring to the Greenland rhetoric as one of the “silliest things” to come out of the White house over the past year, Bacon urged his fellow Republicans to join him in taking a stand
“I hope other Republicans line up behind me and make it clear to the White House this is wrong,” Bacon said.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune speaks during a news conference at the Capitol in Washington.(APPhoto/Mariam Zuhaib) AP PhotoSenate Majority Leader John Thune, meanwhile dismissed out of hand the prospect of deploying the military to seize the Arctic island, saying on Tuesday it was “not something that anybody is contemplating seriously.”
Thune’s remarks came after White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller used an interview to insist that Greenland should rightfully belong to the US.
“What right does Denmark have to assert control over Greenland? What is the basis of their territorial claim? What is their basis of having Greenland as a colony of Denmark?, Miller said on CNN
Miller’s remarks also prompted a searing speech on the Senate floor by retiring Republican Senator Thom Tillis, the party’s top representative of the Senate NATO Observer Group.
“I’m sick of stupid,” a fiery Tillis said. “I want good advice for this president, because I want this president to have a good legacy. And this nonsense on what’s going on with Greenland is a distraction from the good work he’s doing, and the amateurs who said it was a good idea should lose their jobs.”
Tillis, who is usually aligned with the administration, was still angry hours later when he went on cable television.
“Either Stephen Miller needs to get into a lane where he knows what he’s talking about or get out of this job,” he declared.
Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, who co-chairs the Senate Arctic Caucus, said she “hates” the idea of the US taking Greenland by purchase or force, and “I don’t use the word hate very often.”
Senator Lisa Murkowski talks to reporters as she leaves the Capitol in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta) “I think that it’s very, very unsettling,” Murkowski told reporters
“Any effort to claim or take the territory by force would degrade both our national security ad our international relationships,” she added on X.
And former Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell cautioned that threatening a NATO ally would be “counterproductive” and harmful to US interests.
“Threats and intimidation by US officials over American ownership of Greenland are as unseemly as they are counterproductive,” McConnell, a Trump critic, said in a statement.
“And the use of force to seize the sovereign democratic territory of one of America’s most loyal and capable allies would be an especially catastrophic act of strategic self-harm to America and its global influence.”
It seems European leaders frantically trying to find ways to save Greenland from Donald Trump can hope for support from the US Congress. Over the past several days, opposition to the White House’s threats to seize the Danish territory has been growing on both sides of the aisle.
While it comes as no surprise that Democrats have largely condemned Trump's designs on Greenland, particularly any use of military force to seize the island, the fact that even leading Republicans are publicly breaking with their president on this issue is highly unusual.
With the November midterm elections coming into focus, this rare show of dissent underscores how seriously Congressional Republicans view the situation.
“This is appalling," Republican Congressman Don Bacon said in a TV interview. "Greenland is a NATO ally. Denmark is one of our best friends… so the way we’re treating them is really demeaning and it has no upside.”
Referring to the Greenland rhetoric as one of the “silliest things” to come out of the White house over the past year, Bacon urged his fellow Republicans to join him in taking a stand
“I hope other Republicans line up behind me and make it clear to the White House this is wrong,” Bacon said.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune speaks during a news conference at the Capitol in Washington.(APPhoto/Mariam Zuhaib) AP Photo
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, meanwhile dismissed out of hand the prospect of deploying the military to seize the Arctic island, saying on Tuesday it was “not something that anybody is contemplating seriously.”
Thune’s remarks came after White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller used an interview to insist that Greenland should rightfully belong to the US.
“What right does Denmark have to assert control over Greenland? What is the basis of their territorial claim? What is their basis of having Greenland as a colony of Denmark?, Miller said on CNN
Miller’s remarks also prompted a searing speech on the Senate floor by retiring Republican Senator Thom Tillis, the party’s top representative of the Senate NATO Observer Group.
“I’m sick of stupid,” a fiery Tillis said. “I want good advice for this president, because I want this president to have a good legacy. And this nonsense on what’s going on with Greenland is a distraction from the good work he’s doing, and the amateurs who said it was a good idea should lose their jobs.”
Tillis, who is usually aligned with the administration, was still angry hours later when he went on cable television.
“Either Stephen Miller needs to get into a lane where he knows what he’s talking about or get out of this job,” he declared.
Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, who co-chairs the Senate Arctic Caucus, said she “hates” the idea of the US taking Greenland by purchase or force, and “I don’t use the word hate very often.”
“I think that it’s very, very unsettling,” Murkowski told reporters
“Any effort to claim or take the territory by force would degrade both our national security ad our international relationships,” she added on X.
And former Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell cautioned that threatening a NATO ally would be “counterproductive” and harmful to US interests.
“Threats and intimidation by US officials over American ownership of Greenland are as unseemly as they are counterproductive,” McConnell, a Trump critic, said in a statement.
“And the use of force to seize the sovereign democratic territory of one of America’s most loyal and capable allies would be an especially catastrophic act of strategic self-harm to America and its global influence.”
The right's Greenland dilemma
The split between the Republican congressional leadership and the White House highlights the tensions in the party over the president’s military adventurism.
While most Republicans have backed Trump’s military strikes around the world – including in Yemen, Iran and Venezuela – some lawmakers are now warning that threatening a NATO ally is going too far.
So far, Republicans have largely dismissed Trump's threats to invade the island as a negotiating tactic, but that position is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain as senior White House officials repeatedly confirm that military force is on the table.
That’s why more and more Republicans feel they need to put their heads above the parapet, especially in view of a planned Senate vote by the Democratic opposition on a resolution to prevent the US from invading Greenland.
A large iceberg is photographed near the city of Ilulissat, Greenland. (AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti) AP Photo
With Congressional midterm elections ten months away, Republicans are realising that Greenland is not a winning campaign issue. On the contrary: ever since Trump first brought up the Arctic territory as “a large real estate deal” in 2019, polls showed Americans consider a Greenland land grab a low priority or poor idea by large margins.
In addition, they consider Trump’s rhetoric unrealistic and a distraction from domestic concerns.
Republican members of Congress also don’t seem to buy the argument that the US needs Greenland for national security, since a US-Danish agreement from 1951 already enables Washington to “construct, install, maintain, and operate” military bases across Greenland at will.
So, why does Trump want the territory at all?
“He wants the United States to look bigger on a map," said Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky in an emailed statement. "Combined, the United States and Greenland would have a greater land mass than Russia – the largest land mass in the world. For Trump, who is all about optics, this matters."
But for many Republicans who are already facing tough headwinds because of Trump’s unpopular domestic policies, defending a Greenland grab in their own re-election campaigns seems a bridge too far.
The split between the Republican congressional leadership and the White House highlights the tensions in the party over the president’s military adventurism.
While most Republicans have backed Trump’s military strikes around the world – including in Yemen, Iran and Venezuela – some lawmakers are now warning that threatening a NATO ally is going too far.
So far, Republicans have largely dismissed Trump's threats to invade the island as a negotiating tactic, but that position is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain as senior White House officials repeatedly confirm that military force is on the table.
That’s why more and more Republicans feel they need to put their heads above the parapet, especially in view of a planned Senate vote by the Democratic opposition on a resolution to prevent the US from invading Greenland.
With Congressional midterm elections ten months away, Republicans are realising that Greenland is not a winning campaign issue. On the contrary: ever since Trump first brought up the Arctic territory as “a large real estate deal” in 2019, polls showed Americans consider a Greenland land grab a low priority or poor idea by large margins.
In addition, they consider Trump’s rhetoric unrealistic and a distraction from domestic concerns.
Republican members of Congress also don’t seem to buy the argument that the US needs Greenland for national security, since a US-Danish agreement from 1951 already enables Washington to “construct, install, maintain, and operate” military bases across Greenland at will.
So, why does Trump want the territory at all?
“He wants the United States to look bigger on a map," said Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky in an emailed statement. "Combined, the United States and Greenland would have a greater land mass than Russia – the largest land mass in the world. For Trump, who is all about optics, this matters."
But for many Republicans who are already facing tough headwinds because of Trump’s unpopular domestic policies, defending a Greenland grab in their own re-election campaigns seems a bridge too far.
Danish soldiers would shoot back if invaded, government confirms
Copyright AP Photo
Danish soldiers must open fire even without orders if US troops were to try and capture Greenland by force, according to a 1952 directive that Denmark's Defence Ministry confirmed remains in place, domestic media reported.
Soldiers must engage without awaiting orders if anyone were to invade Danish territory, including US troops attempting to seize Greenland, according to a 1952 military directive that Denmark's Defence Ministry has confirmed remains in force.
The standing order requires Danish military personnel to "immediately take up the fight" against any attack on Danish territory without waiting for commands, even if commanders are unaware of a declaration of war, the Defence Command and Ministry told Danish newspaper Berlingske.
The directive has gained attention after US President Donald Trump repeatedly threatened to take control of Greenland by force if necessary, describing the Arctic territory as vital to American national security.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said this week that a military attempt at taking Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, would mark the end of NATO.
“If the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops,” Frederiksen told Danish broadcaster TV2 on Monday.
“That is, including our NATO and thus the security that has been provided since the end of World War II.”
The 1952 order states that attacking forces must respond without hesitation or seek authorisation. The Defence Ministry confirmed to Berlingske that the directive "remains in force," Danish and Greenlandic outlets reported.
The Arctic Command, Denmark's military authority in Greenland, would assess whether any situation constitutes an attack, according to procedures in place.
The directiv was created following Nazi Germany's attack on Denmark in April 1940, when communications partially collapsed and many military units did not know how to respond, according to Denmark's National Encyclopedia.
The order ensures military forces engage in combat upon attack without requiring specific commands.
Both Denmark and Greenland's governments reject Trump's proposals to purchase or seize the island.
Soldiers must engage without awaiting orders if anyone were to invade Danish territory, including US troops attempting to seize Greenland, according to a 1952 military directive that Denmark's Defence Ministry has confirmed remains in force.
The standing order requires Danish military personnel to "immediately take up the fight" against any attack on Danish territory without waiting for commands, even if commanders are unaware of a declaration of war, the Defence Command and Ministry told Danish newspaper Berlingske.
The directive has gained attention after US President Donald Trump repeatedly threatened to take control of Greenland by force if necessary, describing the Arctic territory as vital to American national security.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said this week that a military attempt at taking Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, would mark the end of NATO.
“If the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops,” Frederiksen told Danish broadcaster TV2 on Monday.
“That is, including our NATO and thus the security that has been provided since the end of World War II.”
The 1952 order states that attacking forces must respond without hesitation or seek authorisation. The Defence Ministry confirmed to Berlingske that the directive "remains in force," Danish and Greenlandic outlets reported.
The Arctic Command, Denmark's military authority in Greenland, would assess whether any situation constitutes an attack, according to procedures in place.
The directiv was created following Nazi Germany's attack on Denmark in April 1940, when communications partially collapsed and many military units did not know how to respond, according to Denmark's National Encyclopedia.
The order ensures military forces engage in combat upon attack without requiring specific commands.
Both Denmark and Greenland's governments reject Trump's proposals to purchase or seize the island.
Top-level meeting in the works
Meanwhile, Denmark has welcomed a meeting with the US next week to discuss Trump’s renewed push for Greenland to come under US control.
“This is the dialogue that is needed, as requested by the government together with the Greenlandic government,” Danish Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen told Danish broadcaster DR on Thursday.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had said on Wednesday that a meeting about Greenland would happen next week, without giving details about timing, location or participants.
“I’m not here to talk about Denmark or military intervention. I’ll be meeting with them next week, we’ll have those conversations with them then,” Rubio told reporters on Capitol Hill.
Houses covered by snow are seen on the coast of a sea inlet of Nuuk, Greenland, 7 March 2025Greenland's government has told Danish public broadcaster DR that Greenland will participate in the meeting between Denmark and the US announced by Rubio.
“Nothing about Greenland without Greenland. Of course we will be there. We are the ones who requested the meeting,” Greenland’s Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt told DR.
The island of Greenland, 80% of which lies north of the Arctic Circle, is home to about 56,000 people, mostly Inuit.
Meanwhile, Denmark has welcomed a meeting with the US next week to discuss Trump’s renewed push for Greenland to come under US control.
“This is the dialogue that is needed, as requested by the government together with the Greenlandic government,” Danish Defence Minister Troels Lund Poulsen told Danish broadcaster DR on Thursday.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had said on Wednesday that a meeting about Greenland would happen next week, without giving details about timing, location or participants.
“I’m not here to talk about Denmark or military intervention. I’ll be meeting with them next week, we’ll have those conversations with them then,” Rubio told reporters on Capitol Hill.
Greenland's government has told Danish public broadcaster DR that Greenland will participate in the meeting between Denmark and the US announced by Rubio.
“Nothing about Greenland without Greenland. Of course we will be there. We are the ones who requested the meeting,” Greenland’s Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt told DR.
The island of Greenland, 80% of which lies north of the Arctic Circle, is home to about 56,000 people, mostly Inuit.
Euroviews. EU troops might be needed to stop a US showdown in Greenland
If cooperation or Greenlandic independence fails, a preventive EU troop deployment could avert a US confrontation on the island, German Green MEP Sergey Lagodinsky argues in an opinion article for Euronews.
Nine months ago, I was travelling to Nuuk. After a five-hour journey, the snowy island came into view — only for the plane to suddenly make a sharp U-turn due to fog.
Another five hours later, we completed our round trip. It took me ten hours to get from Copenhagen to Copenhagen. Greenland remained an enigma: easy to talk about, difficult to reach.
It felt like a scene from the 1970s. Yet this reality is far from outdated. In the new world shaped by US President Donald Trump, NATO must monitor not just its eastern flank, but increasingly its western edge as well.
Within days, a Venezuela moment evolved into a Western Hemisphere moment, into a Greenland moment, and finally into a NATO crisis momentum. Ukraine already feels like a distant war.
For the EU, Greenland presents a looming dilemma: overextend or concede. This is a NATO-made crisis, member against member, and existential in nature.
No empty “deep concerns” or agitating statements are in order. Foresight, preparedness and action should be our response. This response must be tailored. We need to prepare for three scenarios and draw difficult long-term conclusions from each of them.
US-Greenland cooperation is the path forward
The preferred path is cooperation. In a normal world, it is possible to meet American concerns regardless of Greenland’s territorial status.
The three defence treaties—starting with the debatable Greenland treaty of 1941, continuing with the still valid and NATO-compatible Agreement of 1951, and its Igaliku modification of 2004, which gave Greenland a say—form a solid and flexible basis for deeper cooperation and broader rights for the American military.
It is possible to expand the US military presence within these agreements. It is possible to strengthen NATO cooperation in the Arctic, as Nordic foreign ministers recently emphasised.
Economic cooperation with the US, especially since Greenland is not in the EU, is another avenue.
But cooperation has prerequisites. The United States must formally recognise Danish sovereignty and Greenland’s right to self-determination.
Given Trump’s lack of reliability, any widening of US presence without formal confirmation of Danish rule and Greenlandic rights could become a trap. More US presence could turn into a prelude to a later takeover.
I doubt that the cooperative scenario is the current administration’s desire. The US administration does not sound like it wants to cooperate. It wants to own.
In that case, the scenarios become messy, but one still looks acceptable from a European point of view, under certain conditions.
Greenlandic independence is possible
The acceptable scenario would test the EU’s and Copenhagen’s credibility in respecting Greenland’s right to self-determination.
Making Greenland an independent state is possible and legitimate under the 2009 Self-Government Act.
A number of American officials and businesspeople are eager to facilitate such independence and later establish a close relationship with Greenland, for example, along the lines of the Marshall Islands.
This path is legitimate. But it comes with caveats and must meet clear preconditions.
First, the process is not fast. Negotiations between Denmark and Greenland would need to lead to an agreement between the two governments, confirmed by Greenland’s parliament and sealed by a referendum among Greenland's population.
The agreement would then require confirmation by the Danish parliament. The process exists, and it matters.
For this option to be acceptable, two prerequisites must be met. If the free will of Greenlanders and the Danish leadership is to be respected, that will must be free and informed.
First, the US administration must stop its threats of military action. Under international law, threats of force are as illegal as the use of force. Negotiations under coercion are unacceptable.
Second, there must be no propaganda. The EU should already begin a strategic anti-disinformation effort to prepare for external pressure and manipulation, particularly through social media.
Only if threats are eliminated and disinformation neutralised can independence become a viable path with this American administration.
Given the time required for independence negotiations and the narrow political window before US midterm elections, a third option may appear tempting in Washington, but it would be devastating for all. This is the confrontational scenario: a forceful takeover.
Two points matter. First, the most likely form would be an instantaneous fait accompli.
That would mean a sharp increase in American troop numbers from today’s roughly 150 personnel at Pituffik Space Base.
EU boots on the ground
To counter this scenario, European troops, Danish or otherwise, should be positioned in Greenland in advance. This would raise the threshold for presenting Europe with accomplished facts on the ground.
Second, clarity about consequences is essential. No one believes a war between the US and the EU is desirable or winnable.
But a military move against the EU would have devastating consequences for defence cooperation, markets, and global trust in the United States — not just in an administration, but in the country itself. Preparing a list of consequences is grim but necessary.
Then comes the homework. Europe must know what and how it can compensate if military, economic, or financial dependencies are used against it.
Designing alternatives to strategic enablers, technologies, and market structures is difficult. But in this case, the EU has no choice. Preparations must advance quickly.
We also need to rethink our structures. Europe needs a fast and strategic decision centre for defence.
That is why I advocate for a small but strong European Security Council — a circle of the most influential countries together with the President of the European Parliament, able to decide for a coalition of the willing.
Finally, Europe should not abandon cooperation with Washington. But it cannot permanently live on alert, dependent on moods in Mar-a-Lago.
Keeping the US within NATO is crucial — but only stronger European capabilities and autonomous decision-making will allow Europe to sleep safely at night.
Sergey Lagodinsky (Greens/EFA) is a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) from Germany.
No comments:
Post a Comment