DONALD Trump is not the first US President to consider acquiring Greenland.
In 1946, the Truman Administration offered Denmark $100 million in gold—roughly $11 billion today—to purchase the island, but Denmark rejected it, viewing the proposal as an affront to sovereignty. Greenland, the world’s largest island at about 836,000 square miles, has long held strategic significance. During World War-II, the US assumed control of Greenland after Nazi Germany occupied Denmark, establishing military bases that persist today, including Pituffik Space Base. Interest continued under Eisenhower and even earlier, President Andrew Johnson explored Arctic acquisitions following Alaska’s purchase. Secretary of State William H. Seward recommended acquiring Greenland and Iceland for their mineral wealth and fishing grounds, while President Taft considered exchanging Mindanao for Greenland. Today, Trump’s renewed proposals, including Canada, face strong domestic and international opposition, with polls showing over three-quarters of Americans against annexing Greenland.
Secretary of State William H. Seward once attempted to negotiate with Russia to acquire Greenland, recommending in a report that the United States also seek Iceland, citing their mineral wealth and strategic fishing grounds. No formal offer was made to Denmark. Later, during President William Howard Taft’s Administration, US Ambassador Maurice Francis Egan proposed exchanging the Philippine island of Mindanao for Greenland, but the idea never progressed. Nearly a century later, President Trump revived interest in acquiring Greenland, along with Canada, drawing significant opposition. Recent polls show over 76% of Americans oppose annexing Greenland, while more than 86% reject annexing Canada. Trump first publicly expressed interest in Greenland in 2019, describing it as a “big real estate deal,” but both Nuuk and Copenhagen immediately rejected the notion. In January 2025, shortly after beginning his second term, Trump again asserted that acquiring Greenland was a “national security priority,” highlighting the island’s enduring strategic importance. When China moves on Taiwan or Russia on Ukraine, the United States calls it aggression. When the United States itself moves against another country, it’s labeled “national security.” Greenland is one of the world’s most sparsely populated places, with roughly 57,000 residents. About 80% of the island is covered in ice. Geographically, it sits between the United States, Europe and Russia in the North Atlantic. Because of its strategic location and vast natural resources, it holds enormous importance for global powers.
The island is central to US defense, surveillance and military strategy in the Arctic. American military bases and radar systems are already present there. According to the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), the island holds an estimated 36.1 million tons of rare-earth elements. The US Geological Survey assesses economically recoverable reserves at around 1.5 million tons. GEUS has also identified significant deposits of graphite, lithium, copper and other minerals critical for the global energy transition. The National Geological Survey estimates around 6 million tons of graphite on the island. Lithium whose global demand the International Energy Agency projects could rise eightfold by 2040 is present in deposits of roughly 235,000 tons. Melting ice has opened new commercial shipping routes in the region, further increasing international interest. Some analysts describe Greenland as a key hub for “space warfare” capabilities.
All of these factors help explain why the United States is so interested in Greenland. Pituffik Space Base gives the US critical defense and monitoring capabilities. It overlooks one of the most important maritime passages in the North Atlantic, known as the GIUK Gap (named after Greenland, Iceland and the United Kingdom). The gap serves as a gateway between the northern European seas and the Atlantic Ocean. The Trump Administration argues that controlling Greenland is necessary to counter Arctic threats and strengthen American defensive capabilities. But would the United States really go to war to seize Greenland or has some form of conflict already begun? Experts debate what Trump actually means when he talks about taking Greenland. There is currently an active information war underway, involving influence campaigns, disinformation and high-level diplomatic pressure from various global powers. At the end of 2025, Denmark’s Security and Intelligence Service confirmed that Greenland has become the target of various “influential operations.” Danish authorities have summoned American diplomats over reports of covert activities aimed at driving wedges between Denmark and Greenland.
For some time, the US State Department has quietly engaged with private citizens and Danish officials in Greenland, urging discretion regarding the island’s independence movement. While most Greenlanders favour independence, economic viability remains unresolved. The Trump Administration has exerted pressure on both Greenlandic and Danish leadership through public and diplomatic channels. The White House has emphasized that military force “has always been an option,” echoed by advisers like Stephen Miller. Officials including Vice President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio argue that Denmark has inadequately defended Greenland against potential threats from Russia and China, framing the island’s acquisition as a strategic imperative.
In March 2025, J.D. Vance publicly urged Greenlanders to sever ties with Denmark, arguing that Copenhagen had not made adequate investment in the island’s defense. Several related reports surfaced in May 2025. In response to the aggressive American posture, Denmark and Greenland have adopted a joint strategy of strengthening national unity. Leaders from both have emphasized that Greenland’s future must be decided by its own people. In the current situation, the very existence of NATO is also being called into question. After high-level talks in Washington between Greenland and the United States failed, people are now asking: to what extent will European countries stand with Copenhagen?
—The writer is Chairman, Tehrik Jawanan Pakistan.
