Does the US Really “Need to Get” Greenland?

Since his reelection, US President Donald Trump has asserted with almost obsessive persistence that American “ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity” for international safety and security. Beyond saying that the US “needs” the world’s largest island and that “we’re going to get it”, Trump has not articulated any specific strategic justification for his desire to control this Danish territory. The recent announcement of a proposed journey there by US Second Lady Usha Vance and National Security Council Advisor Michael Waltz, billed as a cultural visit to dogsled races, reinforces the administration’s Greenland obsession.

In the face of strong opposition to the trip from Danish and Greenlandic leaders and their publics, US Vice President JD Vance said that he would join his wife and skip the dogsled events to visit only the American Pituffik Space Base. His announcement claimed but did not provide evidence that “a lot of countries have threatened Greenland, have threatened to use its territories and its waterways to threaten the United States, to threaten Canada, and of course, to threaten the people of Greenland.” He also claimed that Danish and American neglect has given US adversaries “the opportunity to advance their own priorities in Greenland and the Arctic”.

While there is no doubt that Russian and Chinese activities in the far north pose potential risks to the United States and its allies, and that greater focus on the Arctic is welcome, there is no immediate or serious threat that would necessitate US control over the territory. Denmark and Greenland have made clear their willingness to work with the United States to address current or emerging threats in the Arctic. Instead of engaging substantively with Denmark and Greenland to articulate any genuine concerns or interests, however, the administration has threatened these longstanding allies and engaged in performative diplomacy.

The irony is that the biggest threat to Greenland and Canada today is Washington’s push to take over both allies’ territory through economic pressure and other means, if necessary. If the White House is genuinely concerned about growing Russian threats to US interests, why empower the Kremlin by withdrawing support from Ukraine, which has done more to weaken Moscow than any recent US strategic or diplomatic effort? A Russian victory on the Ukrainian battlefield does more to advance Kremlin priorities in the far north than anything the United States might do in Greenland.

Washington’s approach is quickly undermining its ability to build a peaceful and prosperous Arctic. A United States seen as unreliable and hostile is a gift to Russia and China. A better strategy would include developing clearly articulated security goals and a diplomatic plan to achieve them. In the absence of this, it appears that performative diplomacy will continue to drive this counterproductive international foray.