Trump’s Vision for Greenland and the Emerging World Order
The icy expanse of Greenland, a land of 56,000 people and 836,000 square miles of ice-covered terrain, has become an unlikely epicenter of global power politics. When Donald Trump renewed his interest in acquiring the island territory in early 2026, the world braced for a confrontation that seemed ripped from a Cold War thriller. But beneath the headlines and the president’s characteristically blunt rhetoric lies a more profound transformation: the old rules-based international order is fraying, and a new, transactional great-power competition is taking its place .
As an international relations analyst who has tracked great-power competition across three decades, I argue that Trump’s Greenland gambit is not merely the whim of a real estate mogul turned president. Rather, it represents a coherent—if unsettling—vision of how the United States must adapt to a multipolar world where economic security, military advantage, and resource control are inextricably linked. This article examines the strategic landscape, explores the legal and diplomatic firestorm, and considers what Greenland tells us about the emerging world order.
Understanding the Landscape: Why Greenland Matters Now
To understand Trump’s fixation, one must first appreciate how climate change, technology, and global power shifts have converged on Greenland. This is not the same territory that the United States considered purchasing from Denmark in 1946 for $100 million. Today’s Greenland sits at the crossroads of three transformative developments.
The Resource Imperative
Beneath Greenland’s ice sheet lie vast deposits of rare earth elements—minerals essential for everything from electric vehicles and smartphones to wind turbines and weapons systems. The island is believed to hold reserves that could amount to 20 times those of the mainland United States . For a president who views international relations through a transactional lens, this represents an opportunity too significant to ignore.
Currently, China dominates the global rare earth market, controlling approximately 60-70% of production and an even larger share of processing capacity . This dependence is, in Trump’s view, a strategic vulnerability that must be addressed. During his Davos address in January 2026, he framed the issue in characteristically blunt terms: control over Greenland’s resources is essential for American economic competitiveness and national security .
However, resource extraction faces formidable obstacles. Greenland maintains strict environmental regulations, and local communities have demonstrated strong resistance to large-scale mining operations that would require significant foreign labor influx . The Kvanefjeld project, one of the largest rare earth deposits near the town of Narsaq, was effectively shut down in 2021 amid environmental concerns and local opposition .
The Arctic Passage
Melting polar ice is transforming Greenland from a frozen backwater into a potential maritime crossroads. As the Arctic Ocean becomes more navigable, new shipping routes could dramatically reduce transit times between Europe and Asia . For global trade, this represents a transformation as significant as the opening of the Suez Canal.
For the United States, this development carries both economic and military implications. Russia has already invested heavily in its Arctic capabilities, operating a fleet of nuclear-powered icebreakers—including several new Project 22220 vessels—that far exceeds American capacity . The U.S. Coast Guard, by contrast, operates just three polar icebreakers, though a recapitalization program is underway .
Trump’s interest in Greenland must be understood against this backdrop of Russian Arctic assertiveness and China’s growing interest in polar research and potential shipping routes . While experts note that there are currently no Russian or Chinese warships along Greenland’s coast, the trajectory is clear: the Arctic is becoming a theater of strategic competition .
The Space Dimension
Perhaps the most overlooked aspect of Greenland’s strategic value lies above the Earth’s surface. The Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base) is not merely a relic of Cold War surveillance—it is a critical node in America’s space architecture .
Located well above the Arctic Circle, Pituffik offers unique advantages for missile warning, space surveillance, and satellite tracking. Its position is ideal for monitoring polar orbits and detecting intercontinental ballistic missiles traveling over the North Pole . As the United States develops its Golden Dome missile defense system, Greenland’s real estate becomes increasingly valuable .
But there is more. High-latitude locations like Greenland offer exceptional conditions for launching payloads into polar and sun-synchronous orbits. With global launch capacity tightening and space becoming increasingly congested and contested, Greenland’s geography has become what one analyst calls “strategic gold” .
Case Studies: The Venezuela Precedent and Arctic Analogies
To appreciate the seriousness of Trump’s Greenland interest, one must examine the Venezuela operation of January 2026. In a secretly planned mission, U.S. forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, who now face trial in the United States on narco-terrorism charges . Critics argue the operation was driven primarily by Washington’s interest in Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.
The Venezuela precedent matters for Greenland because it demonstrates Trump’s willingness to use military force in pursuit of resource-related objectives. While the president has repeatedly stated he will not use force against Denmark or Greenland—“I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force”—his administration has demonstrated that military options remain on the table for strategic assets .
More telling is the reported negotiation framework for US sovereign bases in Greenland, modeled partly on the British Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus . These bases, established during Cyprus’s independence process in 1960, allow the UK to retain sovereignty over specific enclaves while the rest of the island functions as an independent state. For Trump’s team, this offers a potential template—one that would give the United States permanent, sovereign control over key military installations without requiring full ownership of the island.
However, as legal scholars have noted, the Cyprus analogy is deeply problematic. The Sovereign Base Areas are widely viewed as colonial remnants, and their legality under contemporary international law is questionable . Moreover, the Trump administration reportedly envisions “SBAs plus”—bases that could be developed commercially, not merely militarily, raising additional legal and political complications .
Implications and Consequences: The Diplomatic Firestorm
Trump’s Greenland initiative has unleashed a cascade of consequences that extend far beyond the North Atlantic. Understanding these implications requires examining how different actors have responded and what their reactions reveal about the changing international order.
The Danish Dilemma
For Denmark, Trump’s demands represent an existential foreign policy crisis. Copenhagen has responded with a combination of diplomatic pushback and increased investment in Arctic security. In 2025, Denmark allocated 1.2 billion euros to Arctic defense, including five new vessels, air radar systems, drones, and maritime patrol aircraft . This investment directly rebuts Trump’s claim that Denmark has failed to provide for Greenland’s security.
Yet Denmark’s position is inherently constrained. The 1951 Defense Agreement with the United States already grants Washington extensive military access to Greenland, requiring only advance notification of significant operational changes . Danish officials emphasize that US security interests can be fully protected within this existing framework—a point echoed by Arctic experts who note that “the United States may increase their military presence in Greenland, but that’s already possible under the existing accord” .
The Greenlandic Response
For Greenlanders, Trump’s rhetoric has reopened colonial wounds at the very moment when the territory was making steady progress toward greater self-determination. 85% of Greenlanders oppose joining the United States, according to polling conducted in early 2025 .
Sara Olsvig, International Chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, captured the sentiment powerfully: “We don’t think that there is such a thing as a better colonizer” . The constant talk of “ownership” and “purchase” evokes a era when Indigenous peoples were treated as commodities to be bought and sold—a framing that Greenlanders find deeply offensive .
Yet the situation is not monolithic. Some Greenlandic political actors, particularly from the pro-independence Naleraq party, have suggested that the crisis could be leveraged to advance self-determination goals. If the United States is willing to negotiate directly with Greenland—bypassing Copenhagen—that could accelerate the territory’s emergence as an independent actor on the world stage . As one party statement put it, “Naleraq does not want Greenlanders to become American. Just as we do not want to be Danish” .
European Reactions
European leaders have responded with a mixture of outrage, concern, and reluctant accommodation. Trump’s Davos speech, in which he suggested that European security depends entirely on American protection and that “without us, most of the countries don’t even work,” was received with barely concealed fury .
Yet the European response has also revealed the continent’s dependence on American security guarantees. When Trump initially threatened tariffs on eight European countries that opposed his Greenland ambitions, the reaction was swift and conciliatory. Within days, reports emerged of a negotiated framework that would address US security concerns without transferring sovereignty .
Swedish Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard captured the European approach: “The demands about moving borders has received well-earned criticism. That is also why we have repeated that we will not be blackmailed. It appears that our work together with allies has had an impact” .
Theoretical Analysis: The Emerging World Order
What does the Greenland crisis tell us about the broader transformation of international relations? I offer three theoretical observations.
The Transactional Turn
Trump’s approach to Greenland exemplifies what might be called the transactional turn in American foreign policy. Traditional alliances, based on shared values and long-term strategic alignment, are being replaced by deal-based relationships where each interaction is evaluated on its immediate costs and benefits .
This is not merely a matter of presidential style. It reflects a deeper shift in the structure of international politics. As the unipolar moment recedes and power becomes more diffused, great powers increasingly view international relations as a zero-sum competition rather than a positive-sum cooperation. In such an environment, control over strategic assets—whether Greenland’s minerals, Ukraine’s farmland, or the South China Sea’s shipping lanes—becomes paramount.
The Weakening of International Law
The Greenland crisis also reveals the declining authority of international legal norms. Legal scholars have documented how Trump’s demands violate multiple frameworks: the UN Charter’s prohibition on threats of force, the right of self-determination, indigenous rights protections, and bilateral defense agreements .
Yet these violations have produced little more than diplomatic hand-wringing. When Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen states that “it’s not going to happen that the US will own Greenland. That’s a red line,” he is asserting a principle—but with no enforcement mechanism beyond American self-restraint .
University of Copenhagen researchers have characterized this as a “diplomatic extreme”—a public act so far-reaching that it challenges fundamental legal and political rules while unfolding on social media, making it visible to all . The fact that such behavior can occur between NATO allies suggests that the alliance’s underlying assumptions are being tested to their breaking point.
The Return of Great-Power Competition
Finally, Greenland must be understood as one front in a broader resurgence of great-power competition. Russia’s Arctic militarization, China’s interest in polar shipping routes and rare earth access, and America’s determination to maintain strategic primacy have converged on this seemingly remote island .
The European Parliament’s Think Tank summarizes the situation succinctly: Greenland is “a focus of geopolitical competition and growing confrontation between major powers—the United States, Russia and China” . This competition is literally and figuratively heating up, as climate change makes the Arctic more accessible while simultaneously raising the stakes for resource control and strategic positioning.
The Role of International Organizations
International organizations have found themselves largely sidelined in the Greenland controversy—a telling indicator of their diminished role in the emerging order.
The Arctic Council, established in 1996 to promote cooperation among Arctic states, is expressly prohibited from addressing military security matters . While it has produced binding agreements on search and rescue, oil spill response, and scientific cooperation, it offers no mechanism for managing the kind of territorial disputes now emerging . As one analysis notes, the Council is “paralysed by geopolitical tensions” .
NATO has attempted to play a mediating role, with Secretary General Mark Rutte reportedly helping to broker the framework agreement announced in January 2026 . But NATO’s involvement is itself complicated: the alliance is designed to protect members from external threats, not to mediate sovereignty disputes between members. When one NATO member threatens another—even rhetorically—the alliance’s foundational assumptions are strained.
The United Nations offers even less. While the ICJ’s Chagos Advisory Opinion establishes important principles about self-determination and territorial integrity, these norms lack enforcement mechanisms . The UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, meanwhile, “can’t keep pace with commercial innovation” and offers no framework for managing the space-related dimensions of Arctic competition .
Strategies for Stakeholders
How should the various actors navigate this treacherous terrain?
For the United States
Washington would be well-advised to pursue its legitimate security interests through existing frameworks rather than demanding sovereignty transfers. The 1951 Defense Agreement already provides extensive access; seeking sovereign bases would trigger legal challenges and political opposition that could ultimately undermine US objectives .
Moreover, the transactional approach carries hidden costs. Alienating Denmark and other European allies weakens the coalition that has supported American global leadership for seven decades. As one analyst notes, “The US knows that neither Russia nor China will invade the island—and even if either did, there would be far more cover within Nato than there would be standing alone, having alienated its military allies” .
For Denmark
Copenhagen must balance reassurance with resolve. Increased Arctic investment demonstrates commitment to Greenland’s defense without conceding Trump’s premise that Denmark has been negligent . At the same time, Danish officials should engage Washington in serious dialogue about long-term Arctic strategy, treating Trump’s interest as an opportunity to deepen cooperation rather than merely a threat to be resisted.
The key is maintaining the principle that Greenland’s future will be decided in Nuuk. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen’s public emphasis on this point has created goodwill and may reduce Greenlandic pressure for immediate independence .
For Greenland
Greenland faces both danger and opportunity. The danger is being caught between competing powers, with decisions made in Washington and Copenhagen that affect Greenlandic lives. The opportunity is leveraging great-power interest to advance self-determination goals.
The territory should insist on direct participation in all negotiations affecting its future—the “nothing about us without us” principle . It should also develop a clear strategic vision that articulates how Greenland wishes to engage with external partners while preserving its environmental values and cultural identity.
For Europe and NATO
European states must confront the uncomfortable truth that their security dependence on the United States creates vulnerability to American pressure. Accelerating European defense cooperation and Arctic capabilities would provide greater bargaining power in future disputes.
At the same time, European leaders should engage Washington seriously on Arctic issues, seeking to channel American interest into cooperative frameworks rather than confrontational demands. The framework agreement announced in January 2026, whatever its specific terms, suggests that such engagement can yield results .
Conclusion and Summary
Trump’s vision for Greenland is not merely the obsession of an unconventional president. It reflects a deeper transformation in international relations—one in which economic competition, military security, and resource control are increasingly inseparable, and in which traditional alliances and legal norms carry diminishing weight.
The crisis reveals several truths about the emerging world order:
First, the rules-based international system is fraying. Threats of force, demands for territorial transfer, and disregard for allied sovereignty would have been unthinkable between NATO members a decade ago. Today, they are subjects of negotiation .
Second, the Arctic has become a theater of great-power competition. Climate change, resource scarcity, and strategic positioning have converged on a region once valued primarily for its isolation .
Third, smaller nations and Indigenous peoples face new pressures—but also new opportunities. Greenland’s strategic importance gives it leverage that previous generations could not have imagined. Whether that leverage can be converted into genuine self-determination remains an open question .
Finally, the Greenland controversy demonstrates that the post-Cold War era is truly over. We have entered a new period of great-power competition, one in which even the closest allies must constantly renegotiate the terms of their partnership.
As the ice melts and the great powers circle, Greenlanders are discovering what peoples throughout history have learned: geography is destiny. The question is whether that destiny can be shaped by those who call this vast, beautiful, challenging island home—or whether it will be imposed by forces beyond their control.
For the rest of us, Greenland offers a warning and a lesson. The emerging world order will be more transactional, more competitive, and less constrained by legal niceties than what came before. Navigating that order will require clear thinking, steady nerves, and a realistic appreciation of both power and principle.
