How Serious Are Trump’s Threats Of Taking Greenland From Denmark?

During Donald Trump’s first, and what many thought would be his last term as President, he abruptly called off a state visit to Denmark in 2019, when their Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, dismissed his offhand comment calling for the United States to buy Greenland. Now, in 2025, as his second term is just beginning, he has revisited the idea. Just under two weeks before his inauguration on the 20th of January, he announced that the U.S. takeover of Greenland was an “absolute necessity”. In response, Prime Minister Frederiksen has dismissed Trump again, stating that “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders,” and it is up to them to decide their future. Despite the strong dismissal from the Danish, Trump’s actions have scared them enough to set up crisis meetings, both within the government, as well as with the nation’s business leaders and CEOs in order to figure out the best way to proceed.

Since Trump’s initial comments, his son, Donald Jr., has visited Greenland in a PR attempt to add further pressure on the Danish. In addition, Trump announced that until Denmark agrees to a deal involving Greenland, he would subject the country to extremely high tariffs on their products being imported into the U.S. Most worryingly, however, despite future Vice President Vance’s assurance of the contrary, Trump has said that he would not rule out military intervention to take the region. While Trump’s entitlement to Greenland may seem unusual for many, there are a number of reasons why the new administration wants to take control of Greenland, with almost all of them being financial. With climate change gradually melting the ice caps, trade routes around Greenland have the potential to become major shipping lanes that the U.S. would want to take advantage of. In addition, ice melting also opens opportunities for companies to drill for oil and gas, with estimates stating that the Arctic around Greenland may hold one-quarter of all global oil and gas reserves. This is something the U.S. would be desperate to have a majority stake in.

With Trump’s recent statements staking claim to Greenland, Canada, the Panama Canal, and the naming of the Gulf of Mexico, it is clear that in his second term, he is once again leaning into the image of being a strongman leader. Whilst this move does help him with this, it is undeniably disrespectful to the sovereignty of many. It goes against the freedom and democracy that his country is supposedly all about. During his first term, President Trump was not unfamiliar with making sensationalist statements, without ever acting on them, and there is no reason to assume that this isn’t more of the same. However, when the leader of the largest military in the world refuses to rule out using force to annex a region of a sovereign nation, then this must be taken seriously.

Whilst it would not be the first time that a nation has bought land from another nation, it would be the first time in years, and on this scale, it would not coincide with the current norms of international relations. Since the Second World War, the United States has had a military presence in Greenland. From 1940 to 1945, Denmark was under Nazi occupation, and in a controversial act, the Danish ambassador to the United States, Henrik Kauffmann, signed over control of Greenland to America. The Danish voided the agreement and recalled Kauffmann, but this period of self-government allowed the United States to establish a military presence in the region that has lasted to the present day. Greenland had been a colony of Denmark since the early 18th century, yet it was only in 1953, that Greenland became an official county of Denmark, and Greenlanders were made citizens. In 1973, the region was given further autonomy with home rule being allowed.

It is true that over the decades Greenland has moved closer to self-governance and removal from the constitutional monarchy of Greenland, however, any move by the U.S. to either buy, pressure, or force their way into Greenland, without the consent of the population would be a violation of every state’s right to self-determination, and should be condemned by the whole international community.

Related