Analysing Trump’s quest for annexing Greenland

By Fortune Madondo

“The US will do something on Greenland whether they like it or not. Because if we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland and we are not going to have Russia or China as a neighbour“, Donald Trump.

President Donald Trump recently suggested that the United States should take ownership of Greenland. Denmark swiftly rejected the idea, stressing that while Greenland is semi-autonomous, it remains an integral part of the Kingdom of Denmark. As Denmark is a NATO member, any attempt to annex Greenland would be viewed as a move against the alliance—potentially destabilising the Arctic region and violating international law.

Greenland at a Glance

Greenland, with its capital in Nuuk, is the world’s largest island. Geographically tied to North America but politically linked to Europe, it is home to about 56,000 people. Though self-governing in areas such as education and taxation, Denmark retains control over defence and foreign policy.

Despite the 3,532 km distance between Nuuk and Copenhagen, Greenland has been politically and culturally tied to Denmark for over a millennium. Once a Danish colony, it was reclassified as a district in 1953 and today sends two representatives to Denmark’s parliament, the Folketing.

The Name “Greenland”

Although 80% of Greenland is covered in ice and snow, the island’s name dates back to Erik the Red, an Icelandic exile who hoped the name would attract settlers. Scientists believe Greenland was indeed green more than 2.5 million years ago, with ancient soil preserved beneath two miles of ice.

Danish Presence in Greenland

Denmark’s ties to Greenland stretch back to the Viking era. In 1721, missionary Hans Egede established permanent Danish-Norwegian settlements, cementing modern Danish influence. Following the Treaty of Kiel in 1814, Denmark ceded Norway to Sweden but retained Greenland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands.

In 1916, the United States formally recognised Danish sovereignty over Greenland through the Lansing Declaration, issued by Secretary of State Robert Lansing. This declaration paved the way for international recognition of Denmark’s rights over the island.

The 1951 Defence Agreement

A landmark treaty in 1951 granted the US extensive military rights in Greenland, including rent-free bases such as Pituffik (formerly Thule Air Base). The agreement allows Washington to establish defence areas without Danish interference and remains in force as long as NATO exists.

Greenland was incorporated into Denmark in 1953, gained Home Rule in 1979, and achieved self-rule in 2009. Under current law, any decision on independence rests with the Greenlandic people.

Why Trump’s Proposal Raises Questions

Trump’s suggestion contradicts the Lansing Declaration, which the US itself signed, and overlooks the sweeping military rights already granted under the 1951 Defence Agreement. Analysts question why Washington would seek formal ownership when it already enjoys strategic control of Greenland through NATO arrangements.

Historical US Interests

During World War II, the German occupation of Denmark raised fears that Greenland could fall under Nazi control. Danish ambassador Henrik Kauffmann, acting independently, offered the US base rights in Greenland. This marked the beginning of America’s deep strategic interest in the island.

After the war, Denmark reaffirmed Kauffmann’s commitments, and in 1949, both nations became NATO allies. Throughout the Cold War, Greenland served as a critical US base for monitoring Soviet military activity, cementing its role as a cornerstone of transatlantic security.

From Strategic Ally to “Bad Ally”

For decades, Denmark—through Greenland—was a vital strategic ally of the United States, particularly during and after the Cold War. But that relationship shifted under Donald Trump’s “America First” policy. In Trump’s view, Washington could no longer tolerate “free-riding” European allies, and Denmark was singled out as a “bad ally” for failing to shoulder responsibility for U.S. security in Greenland.

Trump argued that this lapse justified a full U.S. takeover of Greenland. He refused to rule out military force and pointed to mineral wealth, especially rare earths, as well as a broader ambition to expand U.S. territory and power.

History Repeating Itself

Though not yet official policy, Trump floated the idea of buying Greenland outright, even suggesting payments of between $10,000 and $100,000 to each citizen. The proposal fits a long U.S. tradition of territorial expansion by purchase: Louisiana from France in 1803, Alaska from Russia in 1867, and the Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917.

Trump’s Greenland bid, therefore, is not unprecedented. What is new is the tone. Where Harry Truman’s secret $100 million gold offer in 1946 was discreet and diplomatic, Trump’s approach in 2026 has been blunt, public, and confrontational—more akin to a corporate takeover than a negotiation.

A Long History of U.S. Interest

Greenland has long attracted U.S. strategic attention. William Seward, architect of the Alaska purchase, once floated the idea of acquiring Greenland. In 1910, an American ambassador suggested a swap with Denmark for a Philippine island. Truman’s 1946 bid was the most serious, though ultimately rejected.

The difference today is that the U.S. already enjoys extensive rights in Greenland. The 1951 Defence Agreement with Denmark granted Washington rent-free bases, including Thule Air Base, and sweeping military privileges. At one point, the U.S. operated 17 bases there with 10,000 troops. The treaty remains in force, meaning the U.S. can expand its presence with Denmark’s consent.

Not About Security

Trump’s claim that Greenland is essential for U.S. security is undermined by existing agreements. If Washington wants new bases or more troops, it can simply request approval. Denmark and Greenland have historically cooperated. Observers also note that Trump’s warnings about Russian and Chinese ships “all over Greenland” are exaggerated; most activity is confined to Russian waters across the Arctic.

A Psychological Dimension

Analysts suggest Trump’s fixation with Greenland reflects his real estate worldview. As a former property developer, he sees ownership as the ultimate measure of success. Leasing or partnership arrangements, they argue, do not satisfy his transactional mindset. Trump himself reinforced this view, saying: “Countries have to have ownership, and you defend ownership; you don’t defend leases.”

Beyond Security: Strategic Leverage

Greenland’s importance lies not only in defence but in its geography and resources. Beneath its ice lie untapped rare earth minerals. Positioned between North America and Europe at the gateway to the Arctic Ocean, Greenland offers control over emerging trade routes and military advantage.

For this reason, some describe Greenland as the “Panama Canal of the 21st Century.” Whoever controls Greenland controls access to the Arctic—and with it, a powerful lever in global geopolitics.

Military Importance

Greenland sits at the gateway to the Arctic Ocean, directly along the shortest flight paths for missiles, bombers, and satellites between the United States, Russia, and China. In the nuclear age, this geography matters. For decades, the U.S. has operated military bases in Greenland to monitor airspace, track missiles, observe space activity, and control Arctic skies.

Breaking China’s Rare Earth Monopoly

China currently controls 90% of global rare earth processing—materials essential for smartphones, electric vehicles, batteries, fighter jets, and advanced missiles. A supply cut could cripple both the U.S. military and economy. Greenland, however, holds vast untapped reserves of rare earth metals. Securing Greenland would weaken China’s grip on future technology and give Washington a critical advantage.

New Trade Routes and Global Influence

Climate change is opening Arctic shipping lanes that could cut travel time between Asia and Europe by 40%. These routes have the potential to reshape global trade. Whoever controls Greenland—and by extension, access to the Arctic—will hold a powerful lever over future logistics and supply chains.

U.S. Adventurism and the Threat to Peace

Trump’s rhetoric over Greenland has alarmed Europe. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that a forceful U.S. acquisition could dissolve NATO. Trump aide Stephen Miller dismissed concerns, saying, “No country will fight against America over Greenland.” To observers, this sounded less like diplomacy and more like an ultimatum—an alliance cracking from within.

America First vs. European Unity

Denmark insists “sovereignty is not for sale.” Unable to match U.S. military power, Copenhagen has leaned on NATO solidarity to defend Greenland. Trump, meanwhile, has promised to secure Greenland “the easy way or the hard way.” This raises unprecedented questions: if the U.S. were to attack Denmark, a NATO ally, would Article 5—“an attack on one is an attack on all”—still hold?

Polling shows only 6% of Greenlanders support a U.S. takeover. Most prefer eventual independence, not annexation. Denmark’s foreign minister has urged restraint, warning that escalation could fracture NATO and destabilize Europe.

Security or Expansion?

Denmark has already granted the U.S. extensive military rights under the 1951 Defence Agreement, including rent-free bases such as Thule Air Base. Washington can expand its presence simply by asking. This raises the question: is Trump’s push really about security, or about imperial expansion for economic and political gain?

Republican voices, such as Angie Wong of Miami, frame Greenland as essential for the next industrial revolution powered by AI and advanced energy needs. Trump himself has argued: “If we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland.” His message is clear: what America wants must prevail—“might is right.”

International Law and Sovereignty

The U.S. is a signatory to the Lansing Declaration of 1916, which recognized Danish sovereignty over Greenland, and the 1951 Defence Agreement, which already grants Washington sweeping military privileges. Ignoring these treaties undermines international law and the principle of sovereignty.

Conclusion

Trump insists Greenland is vital for U.S. national and international security. Denmark and Greenland respond that sovereignty is non-negotiable. This confrontation raises profound questions:

• Do we live in a world where the strong impose their will on the weak?
• Does international law apply equally to all nations?
• Can great powers justify annexation in the name of “security”?
• What protection exists for smaller nations caught between geopolitical giants?
• Is sovereignty worth more than strategic advantage?

Greenland, a frozen island of fewer than 60,000 people, has become the stage for a global test of power, law, and principle.

F. Madondo (African Teacher) fortmada123@gmail.com