GREENLAND: What’s Behind Trump’s Arctic Interest?

In the previous post, we touched on Trump’s ambitions in Venezuela and his increasing interest in Greenland. Now, it’s time to dive deeper into Greenland itself and explore what a potential U.S. takeover could really mean. What role does Denmark play today? Has Greenland truly been neglected by the EU? Will Trump really risk breaking up NATO? 

Let’s find out! 

WHAT IS GREENLAND?

Greenland is the world’s largest island, with a small population of around 56,000 people, the majority of whom are Inuit. Most residents live along the southwest coast in towns such as Nuuk, the capital. Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, managing its own domestic affairs while Denmark handles defense and foreign policy. Culturally, Greenland blends indigenous traditions with Nordic influences, and its society is closely tied to the harsh Arctic environment and the sea.

Economically, Greenland is heavily dependent on fishing, which accounts for the vast majority of its exports, particularly shrimp and halibut. The public sector is large, and Denmark provides substantial financial support through annual subsidies, which are essential to the island’s economy. While tourism is growing and there is interest in diversifying the economy, Greenland still faces challenges such as high living costs, limited infrastructure, and a narrow economic base. Poverty is an issue on the island.

WHY DOES TRUMP WANT IT SPECIFICALLY?

Greenland is believed to possess vast and largely untapped mineral and energy resources, including rare earth elements, uranium, iron ore, zinc, gold, and potentially significant offshore oil and gas reserves. Rare earths are especially valuable because they are essential for modern technologies such as smartphones, electric vehicles, wind turbines, and military equipment. As climate change reduces Arctic ice cover, these resources are becoming more accessible, making extraction more feasible and commercially attractive. This growing accessibility has drawn attention from global powers and multinational companies eager to secure long-term supplies of critical materials in a world increasingly shaped by technological competition and green energy transitions.

Geopolitically, Greenland holds enormous strategic value due to its location between North America and Europe and its position along emerging Arctic shipping routes. Control or influence over Greenland enhances military reach, early-warning defense systems, and access to the Arctic, which is becoming a new frontier of global competition.

The United States already operates Thule Air Base in northern Greenland, a key site for missile defense and space surveillance. From a U.S. perspective, increased involvement in Greenland helps counter growing Chinese and Russian activity in the Arctic, secures vital trade and defense routes, and strengthens American influence in a region that is rapidly gaining importance in global security and economic strategy.

It is worth reminding that US and Denmark already have long-standing agreements in place whereby USA can stations as many troops as they want. This means that America can increase defense potential without "owning" Greenland 

WHAT IS EU AND DENMARK GIVING GREENLAND?

Denmark plays a central role in supporting Greenland’s economy and governance. Each year, Denmark provides a substantial block grant (over €500 million) which covers a large portion of Greenland’s public budget. This funding supports essential services such as healthcare, education, infrastructure, and social welfare. 

Denmark is also responsible for Greenland’s defense and foreign policy, giving the island security backing through NATO and access to international diplomacy. In addition, Denmark contributes technical expertise, administrative support, and investment in areas such as airports, telecommunications, and energy projects. For many in Greenland, Danish support is critical to maintaining living standards in a remote and challenging environment.

The European Union, while Greenland is not an EU member, also provides financial and strategic support through partnership agreements. The EU funds education, sustainable development, climate research, and fisheries management programs in Greenland, with a strong focus on training and capacity building. 

Fishing access agreements allow EU vessels to operate in Greenlandic waters in exchange for financial contributions that support local communities and government budgets. The EU also invests in scientific research and environmental monitoring in the Arctic, helping Greenland benefit from international collaboration. Despite these contributions, critics argue that EU engagement has been limited compared to Greenland’s growing geopolitical importance, fueling the perception that the island has been strategically overlooked in recent years.

WHAT IF USA ATTACKS ANOTHER NATO MEMBER?

If the United States were to attack another NATO member, it would trigger the most serious crisis in the alliance’s history. NATO is built on collective defense and mutual trust, with Article 5 committing members to defend one another against external aggression. An attack by one member on another would fundamentally undermine this principle, creating legal, political, and moral chaos within the alliance. It would raise unprecedented questions about whether Article 5 could apply against a founding member and whether the alliance could even function in its current form afterward.

Politically, such an action would shatter U.S. credibility among its allies and likely lead to a collapse of trust across Europe. Many NATO countries would reassess their security dependence on Washington, potentially accelerating efforts to build independent European defense structures. Diplomatic relations would be severely damaged. Sanctions could be imposed even among allies. And worst outcome. The unity that NATO relies on to deter external threats, particularly from Russia and China, would be severely weakened. In effect, it would hand strategic advantages to rival powers by fracturing the Western alliance from within.

MY OPINION

I believe Trump is serious when he says he wants to acquire Greenland. This view is not based solely on the way the Venezuela situation may have emboldened him. In a recent interview, Trump made it clear that he has little regard for international law, suggesting that only his own moral boundaries restrain him. The prospect of NATO’s collapse may even appeal to him rather than deter him.

As for Greenland itself, it is a harsh, remote island where life is extremely challenging and economic growth is limited. Greenlanders enjoy a reasonable standard of living largely because Denmark provides substantial financial support to maintain infrastructure and public services. I highly doubt that Trump or the United States would be willing to shoulder this burden. The result could be a sharp decline into deeper poverty and social instability for Greenland’s population.

Regarding NATO, it is reckless to dismantle the most successful and powerful military alliance in modern history. The United States needs NATO just as much as NATO needs the United States. Trump is delusional if he believes America can thrive in isolation. The economic, defensive, and geopolitical consequences would be severe. We are already seeing through Syria, Iran, and Venezuela that Russia is neither a capable nor a reliable partner. China, meanwhile, has little interest in engaging with the United States on equal or cooperative terms.

The only natural and genuinely strong partnership for the United States is Europe—not fragmented individual states, but a strong and united European Union with significant economic power and global influence. 

CONCLUSION 

Greenland sits at the intersection of resources, strategy, and rising global competition. Rich in critical minerals and positioned at the gateway to the Arctic, it has become far more than a remote island—it is a geopolitical prize. While Denmark and the EU continue to provide financial stability, governance, and development support, growing U.S. interest reflects a broader struggle for influence in a rapidly changing Arctic.

However, any attempt by the United States to forcibly assert control over Greenland would come at an enormous cost. It would shatter NATO unity, undermine international law, and destabilize the global security order. The future of Greenland will be shaped not just by what it contains, but by how responsibly the world’s powers choose to compete for it.