WASHINGTON – US President Donald Trump is considering options to take on Greenland, including the use of military force.
White House termed acquisition of Greenland a semi-autonomous territory of NATO member Denmark , as “national security priority” for US. The declaration came just hours after European leaders issued rare joint statement backing Denmark and opposing Trump’s ambitions over the Arctic island. The timing has alarmed diplomats across Europe.
Over weekend, Trump openly declared that United States “needs Greenland for security reasons.” Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen responded with stark warning, saying that any American attack on Greenland would trigger the collapse of NATO itself. This is not an isolated remark.
Trump repeatedly expressed interest in Greenland, first proposing to buy island in 2019 during his first term. At the time, European leaders privately dismissed the idea as absurd. But this time, the tone is radically different.
Last year, Trump went even further, publicly saying that he would not rule out using military force to gain control of Greenland, citing economic and strategic interests. Since the start of 2025, his rhetoric has intensified, and now, White House has confirmed that economic pressure, purchase, and military action are all on the table.
Experts say Trump’s fixation is driven by what lies beneath Greenland’s vast ice sheets.
A 2023 report by the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland revealed that the island contains large deposits of at least 38 critical minerals, including Copper, Graphite, Niobium, Titanium, Rhodium. Rare earth elements such as neodymium and praseodymium are vital for electric vehicles, wind turbines, and advanced military technology.
In an era of global competition with China and Russia, control over these resources could reshape economic and military power in the Arctic.
Greenland holds crucial geopolitical crossroads. During Cold War, US maintained a massive military presence there, using bases to monitor ballistic missile threats from Russia. At its peak, nearly 10,000 US personnel were stationed on the island. Today, about 200 remain.
Despite Denmark already allowing a permanent US military base under a bilateral agreement, Trump insists this is not enough. Over weekend, POTUS claimed Greenland was “full of Russian and Chinese ships”, arguing that Denmark is incapable of protecting it, a claim Copenhagen has categorically denied.
The crisis spilled into high-level diplomacy in Paris, where European leaders met US representatives to push for a Ukraine peace agreement, described by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as “90% complete.” Yet behind closed doors, another issue dominated discussions: Greenland.
Six major European nations including UK, France, and Germany issued a joint statement affirming that: Arctic security should be handled collectively within NATO. Only Denmark and Greenland have the right to decide the island’s future. But notably, the statement avoided directly criticizing the United States.
European officials privately admit they fear provoking Trump — even as Washington openly threatens the sovereignty of a NATO ally.
Because both Denmark and the US are NATO members, Article 5, the alliance’s collective defense clause would not apply if one NATO country attacked another. This loophole has left European leaders deeply uneasy.
Behind closed doors at NATO headquarters, officials admit that no contingency planning exists for a scenario in which the US uses force against Greenland.
Despite Denmark pledging $4 billion to strengthen Greenland’s defense with ships, drones, and aircraft, the Trump administration has shown little interest in dialogue.
Critics say Europe’s response exposes its weakness Failure to use frozen Russian assets to aid Ukraine, Silence after Trump imposed 15% tariffs on European goods. Continued dependence on US intelligence, air power, and command systems.
Former NATO officials warn this confrontation could fracture the European Union itself and push NATO into its most severe crisis since its founding.
