In recent weeks, US President-elect Donald Trump has reignited discussions about Greenland, a semi-autonomous Danish territory in the Arctic. Known as the world’s largest island, Greenland is 80% covered by ice but holds significant untapped mineral resources. Trump initially expressed interest in purchasing the territory in 2019 during his presidency. However, his recent refusal to rule out economic or military measures to gain control of Greenland has amplified tensions between the US and Denmark.
Danish and European officials have firmly rejected the idea, emphasizing Greenland’s territorial integrity. This situation raises questions about the future of Greenland, its relationship with Denmark, and its aspirations for independence after three centuries under Danish control. The following explores four possible outcomes for Greenland’s fate.
Trump Loses Interest and Status Quo Prevails
Some analysts suggest that Trump’s statements might be strategic, aimed at pressuring Denmark to bolster Greenland’s security amid growing Russian and Chinese interests in the Arctic. Denmark recently announced a $1.5 billion military package for the Arctic, prepared before Trump’s remarks but viewed as coincidentally timed. Danish Defense Minister described the timing as an “irony of fate.”
Elisabet Svane, chief political correspondent for Politiken newspaper, believes Trump’s comments underline Denmark’s obligation to strengthen its Arctic defenses or allow the US to step in. Marc Jacobsen, associate professor at the Royal Danish Defence College, suggests Trump’s stance may be part of positioning himself before taking office. He also notes that Greenland is leveraging the moment to gain international recognition, a critical step toward independence.
Even if Trump eventually loses interest, as Jacobsen predicts, his remarks have spotlighted Greenland’s strategic importance. Meanwhile, Greenland’s push for independence persists. “The Greenland PM is calmer in his comments—yes, we want independence, but in the long run,” notes Svane.
Greenland Secures Independence and Aligns Closer with the US
Independence is a widely supported goal among Greenland’s 56,000 residents, and experts agree that Denmark would respect a referendum favoring it. However, financial concerns remain a significant barrier. Greenland relies on Danish subsidies to fund healthcare and welfare services. Without guarantees to maintain this financial support, independence could seem unattainable.
“The Greenland PM may call for a referendum, but he will need a compelling narrative to secure Greenland’s economy and welfare system,” says Ulrik Gad, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies.
One potential compromise is a free association arrangement, akin to the US’s relationships with the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau. While Denmark has historically opposed this status for Greenland, current Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen may be open to negotiation. Dr. Gad suggests Denmark’s understanding of its colonial legacy has evolved.
“Danish understanding of Greenland’s historical experience is far better than it was 20 years ago,” he observes, adding that maintaining a looser connection with Greenland might be preferable to losing all influence in the Arctic.
Even with Danish ties severed, Greenland would likely remain under US influence. The US gained strategic control of Greenland during World War II and views it as critical to national security. A 1951 agreement affirmed Denmark’s sovereignty while granting the US broad privileges on the island. Dr. Gad confirms, “Greenland officials now understand the US will never leave.”
Trump Increases Economic Pressure
Some speculate that Trump could use economic leverage to coerce Denmark into concessions over Greenland. A sharp increase in tariffs on Danish or European Union goods is one potential move. Trump’s threat of universal 10% tariffs on US imports could disrupt European economies, forcing Denmark to reconsider its stance.
Danish governments have prepared for such scenarios. Jacobsen points out that US tariffs could significantly impact Danish industries like pharmaceuticals. Denmark exports essential products such as hearing aids, insulin, and Novo Nordisk’s diabetes drug Ozempic to the US. Any resulting price hikes could be unpopular with American consumers.
Benjamin Cote, of international law firm Pillsbury, notes that invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is one option for raising tariffs. Still, analysts believe economic measures targeting Danish goods would provoke backlash within the US.
Military Action: The Extreme Option
While military intervention might seem improbable, Trump’s refusal to rule it out has raised concerns. The US already maintains military bases and troops in Greenland, making a potential takeover logistically straightforward. “The US has de facto control already,” says Jacobsen.
Nevertheless, such an action would spark an international crisis. Elisabet Svane warns that invading Greenland would violate NATO’s collective defense clause under Article 5, creating an unprecedented conflict within the alliance. “If they invade Greenland, they invade NATO. That’s where it stops,” she asserts.
Dr. Gad draws parallels between Trump’s rhetoric and the territorial ambitions of China’s Xi Jinping regarding Taiwan or Russia’s Vladimir Putin regarding Ukraine. “He’s saying it’s legitimate for us to take this land. If we take him seriously, this is a bad omen for the Western alliance,” he cautions.
Why Greenland Matters
Trump’s interest in Greenland underscores its strategic and economic significance. The island’s location is vital for Arctic security, and its untapped resources, including rare minerals, add to its appeal. However, Greenland’s population and Danish officials remain united against a sale or forced acquisition.
As the world watches this unusual geopolitical clash unfold, the outcome will hinge on Greenland’s aspirations, Denmark’s strategies, and Trump’s next moves. Regardless of the immediate resolution, Greenland’s future has undeniably taken center stage in international discussions.