Ask Onix
White House confirms Trump exploring Greenland takeover options
The U.S. administration has acknowledged discussions about securing control of Greenland, citing national security interests. President Donald Trump and his advisers argue the Arctic territory is critical for American defense, though the proposal has faced sharp rejection from Greenlandic and Danish leaders.
Greenland's strategic significance
The world's largest non-continental island, Greenland sits in the Arctic and is home to roughly 56,000 people, primarily Indigenous Inuit. About 80% of its landmass remains covered by ice, with most residents concentrated along the southwestern coast near the capital, Nuuk.
While fishing drives the local economy, Greenland relies heavily on subsidies from Denmark, its semi-autonomous overseer. Melting ice due to climate change has heightened global interest in the island's untapped natural resources, including rare earth minerals, uranium, and iron ore.
Trump's security argument and backlash
Trump has repeatedly framed Greenland as a security imperative, dismissing suggestions that mineral wealth is the motivation. "We need Greenland for national security, not minerals," he stated, alleging the island's waters are crowded with Russian and Chinese vessels.
Republican lawmakers echo these concerns, portraying the territory as vulnerable to U.S. adversaries. Following a 2025 U.S. military operation in Venezuela that removed President Nicolás Maduro, Trump renewed calls for Greenland's acquisition, calling it vital for both American and European defense.
"Nobody's going to fight the U.S. over the future of Greenland."
Stephen Miller, Trump adviser
Greenland's Prime Minister Jens Frederik Nielsen condemned the remarks, calling the idea a "fantasy" and demanding an end to the pressure. Denmark's Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that any forced takeover would fracture NATO, while UK leader Sir Keir Starmer joined a joint statement with European allies affirming Greenland's sovereignty belongs to its people.
Historical tensions and military presence
Denmark has governed Greenland for nearly 300 years, though the U.S. has long eyed the island. During World War II, American forces occupied Greenland after Nazi Germany invaded Denmark, establishing military installations. A 1951 defense pact granted the U.S. rights to maintain bases, including Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), which remains operational.
Greenland gained home rule in 1979, managing domestic policies while Denmark retained control over foreign affairs and defense. Despite hosting both Danish and American military sites, local opposition to U.S. annexation runs deep. A 2019 poll showed most Greenlanders support independence from Denmark but overwhelmingly reject becoming part of the U.S.
Escalating rhetoric and diplomatic fallout
Trump's renewed push in 2025 included appointing a special envoy, Jeff Landry, who publicly discussed integrating Greenland into the U.S. The move alarmed Denmark, traditionally a close U.S. ally, and sparked protests in Nuuk. Vice President JD Vance's March 2026 visit further strained relations, with Vance accusing Denmark of neglecting Greenland's security needs.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth confirmed the Pentagon has "contingency plans" for Greenland, though the White House has not ruled out military action. Nielsen responded sharply: "No more pressure. No more insinuations. No more fantasies of annexation."
During a 2025 visit, BBC correspondent Fergal Keane reported widespread sentiment among Greenlanders: "Greenland belongs to Greenlanders." The issue dominated that year's general election, with voters reaffirming their rejection of U.S. control.
International law and Greenland's future
Greenland's leaders insist any discussions must respect international law and occur through formal diplomatic channels. While polls show growing support for full independence from Denmark, most residents oppose foreign domination. As one local tour operator put it: "He's treating us like a good he can purchase."
With Trump's stance showing no signs of softening, the standoff underscores the Arctic's growing geopolitical importance-and the limits of U.S. influence over a territory determined to chart its own course.
