Advancing US Interests in Greenland
President-elect Donald Trump’s recent claim that US “ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity” for national and economic security, alongside his refusal to rule out using “military or economic coercion” to acquire the world’s largest island, has sparked sharp reactions and widespread controversy on both sides of the Atlantic. Greenland's prime minister, Mute Egede, quickly rejected Trump's remarks, asserting that “Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our long struggle for freedom.” Reflecting the broader threat to transatlantic relations posed by the threat of military force, France and Germany stepped forward to affirm that Europe would not “let other nations of the world attack its sovereign borders”. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz pointedly added that “the principle of the inviolability of borders applies to every country.”
Trump’s comments, which came during a long and rambling news conference, fueled days of discussion about whether they represented a serious reflection of the incoming administration’s intentions. The suggestion that the United States might be willing to use force against a NATO ally had been unprecedented and unimaginable in the 75-year history of the alliance. With congressional Republicans unwilling to challenge the president-elect’s expansionist tendencies, and some, such as Sen. Lindsay Graham, climbing aboard the expansionist bandwagon, it is already clear that Trump will face few constraints from his own party, even on his more bizarre and farcical ideas. Consequently, US allies and partners understand that they cannot simply ignore seemingly untethered ideas and statements, even if they are likely intended primarily to divert media attention from the economic challenges that Trump pledged to remedy but has so far offered few ideas to address.
Lost in the frenzied reaction at home and abroad to Trump’s comments is the issue of broader US interests in a rapidly changing Arctic and the best ways for Washington to advance those interests. Trump is correct that Greenland has been and remains vital to American national security and will be increasingly important economically as climate change opens the Arctic to expanded global shipping. Unfortunately, a bullying, bombastic approach is more likely to harm US interests than advance them.
These interests, as articulated in the National Strategy for the Arctic Region, are clear and straightforward: “The United States seeks an Arctic region that is peaceful, stable, prosperous, and cooperative.” The strategy calls for ensuring US security and defense, mitigating and building resilience to climate change, expanding economic opportunities, protecting and improving livelihoods for the 4 million people of the far north, and reinforcing international law, rules, norms, and standards across Arctic countries. It recognizes that achieving these goals requires US leadership.
Greenland has been of great security interest to the United States since World War II, when access to the island allowed American forces to thwart Nazi Germany’s control of vital air and sea lanes. In 1941, Greenland became a de facto American protectorate, and US-provided provisions and humanitarian aid fostered enduring goodwill between the largely Inuit Greenlandic people and the United States. Greenland’s strategic significance continued during the Cold War, reflected in US reluctance to leave the island as initially requested by Denmark, and Washington’s subsequent offer to purchase the territory for $100 million. Denmark rejected the offer but, recognizing Greenland’s strategic significance, abandoned neutrality, joined NATO, and signed a defense treaty in April 1951 that established US “defense areas”, under the alliance’s umbrella, to strengthen collective defense. Thule Air Base (now the Pituffik Space Base) was built in 1953, boosting NATO’s ability to track Soviet submarines in the GIUK (Greenland, Iceland, United Kingdom) gap and to enhance satellite and missile defense capabilities. The heightened threat environment since Russia’s invasions of Ukraine and the increasing accessibility of the Arctic Sea have only reinforced Greenland’s strategic value to the United States and NATO.
Climate change and the resulting demand for essential and rare earth minerals has also generated interest in Greenland’s potential as a supplier of key elements such as lithium, niobium, and zirconium. All are needed for the green economy and defense production. The United States and the EU have signed framework mining agreements with Greenland, and China (which already controls most global mineral supply chains and processing capacity) has expressed interest in a similar arrangement. Still, potential mining projects face steep environmental, technological, and political hurdles. An Australian-led project with some Chinese funding was shut down in 2021 by stringent new Greenlandic environmental regulations. Climate-linked transformations will impact the island’s economy, challenging traditional livelihoods and creating new economic opportunities, but it will likely be many years until Greenland emerges as a significant source of essential minerals.
Beyond security and economic interests, the United States continues to have an enduring interest in ensuring international cooperation and governance in the Arctic through the Arctic Council, and in upholding international law, rules, norms, and standards in the region. Should those laws and norms be abandoned, chaos and competition there could open the door to non-Arctic nations, most importantly China, which has been a permanent observer to the Arctic Council since 2013 and seeks to exploit the region to its economic and security advantage.
What’s the Problem?
Given these core interests, Trump’s recent statements beg two questions: Are US security, economic, and political interests under threat and, if so, what would be the best strategy to secure those interests. While he called ownership and control of Greenland necessary, he did not articulate any actual shortcoming in current US security cooperation with Denmark and Greenland. Moreover, no major American efforts have yet been made to invest in mineral extraction in Greenland.
There is no doubt that Chinese and Russian activities and increasing cooperation in the far north pose potential risks, as the US Department of Defense’s 2024 Arctic Strategy highlights. However, when Greenland put out to bid three airport expansion projects in 2019 and a Chinese company actively pursued the contract, the United States was able to work with Denmark to support a more attractive Danish proposal, which was ultimately accepted by Greenland. That kept the Chinese at bay. China’s presence on the island remains limited, and the Greenlandic people do not currently regard China as a desirable investment partner.
Defense cooperation among the United States, Denmark, and Greenland remains close. There is no indication that the existing defense agreement is inadequate, or that any emerging issues could not be addressed through regular diplomatic and security cooperation. “If [the] agreement is inadequate, I’d like to know why and where it has fallen short, because it’s not been a problem,” noted Dan Fried, former National Security Council director for Europe, adding that “Denmark has been a serious contributor to common security.” In the absence of any shortcoming in US relations with Greenland and Denmark, and given their active engagement in NATO to deter potential security threats in the far north, it is unclear why Greenland has become the target of presidential-level threats and bullying. American diplomatic engagement is more than capable of managing any challenge that may emerge with its traditionally close Danish and Greenlandic partners.
Unprovoked verbal or military aggression, however, would undermine the United States’ ability to advance its interests in a peaceful, stable, prosperous, and cooperative Arctic. A United States that is seen as an unreliable and even hostile partner serves only to make China, Russia, and other American antagonists appear more attractive, whether as investors, traders, or security partners. Similarly, if the United States abandons its leadership in maintaining an Arctic where international law, rules, and norms are upheld, and instead undermines laws and rules, such as the sovereignty of nations and inviolability of borders, it would be a gift to Russia, China, and others who seek to undermine such norms and the stability they create in the far north and worldwide. That would be a significant setback for US interests in the Arctic and well beyond.
The reality, as the US National Strategy for the Arctic Region makes clear, is that “the Arctic is home to some of the United States’ closest allies and partners”: Canada, Denmark (including Greenland), Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. These allies are already enhancing joint capabilities, expanding cooperation, and improving interoperability and information-sharing. Threats to Arctic security and US interests from Russia or China that may emerge would be much more efficiently and cost-effectively addressed by working with these NATO partners than by acting alone. Much more needs to be done to protect Western interests, including expanding allied icebreaker fleets (which the ICE Pact among the United States, Canada, and Finland seeks to do), enhancing situational awareness and communications, establishing a more robust regional presence, and augmenting military exercise capabilities. But much more will be done if the United States and its allies work together.
Ultimately, Trump’s renewed bombast about buying or seizing Greenland is another example of his long-standing refusal to acknowledge the extent to which the United States benefits from having allies and partners that share burdens, bring regional knowledge and capabilities to resolve problems, and are willing to work together to meet evolving threats and challenges. Rather than imagining problems that do not exist and proposing actions that would make things worse, the incoming administration would do well to build on the close bilateral relationships and NATO partnerships that the United States enjoys to ensure future Arctic peace, stability, and prosperity.