In attempting to annex Greenland as the “51st” U.S. state, the Trump administration has made it apparent that its desire is not for “national security” but to make an international statement of power.
President Trump has been publicly playing with the idea of annexing Greenland since 2019 during his first term. At that time, he marketed it as a “real estate deal” rather than a military acquisition. It has since been rebranded and, in recent months, it has become less of a loose concept and evolved into a more solidified goal.
Trump isn’t the first president to toy with the potential U.S. annexation of Greenland. The Truman administration tried to buy Greenland from Denmark for $100 million in gold in 1946, following WWII. Although the purchase was denied, the U.S. was allowed to establish the Pituffik Space Base on the northwest coast of Greenland, an active-duty military base where 150 American troops are currently stationed.
Trump has told several news outlets and has publicly stated that his main purpose in annexing Greenland would be to increase U.S. national security; however, that is completely feasible without military invasion. The same agreement that greenlit the establishment of the Pituffik Space Base also stated that the U.S. is fully authorized to construct and operate military bases, aircraft, and ships across Greenland.
Mikkel Runge Olesen, a researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies in Copenhagen, told The New York Times that “The U.S. has such a free hand in Greenland that it can pretty much do what it wants,” which leads to the question of whether national security is truly the main objective.
Texts between Trump and Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre on Jan. 18 regarding Trump’s threat of a 10% tariff on Norwegian and Danish goods also point to an emotional desire for Greenland. When Støre reached out to President Trump, he asked to work together to de-escalate the situation, stating that “much is happening around us where we need to stand together.” The President responded by affirming that since Norway “decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize,” he no longer has “an obligation to think purely of Peace,” revealing a greater desire to be awarded than to follow international law.
Since there is still much discussion over officially annexing Greenland, it seems as though the administration is less focused on protecting U.S. borders and more eager to expand them overseas.
According to polls posted by both Danish newspaper Berlingske and Greenlandic daily Sermitsiaq, 85% of Greenlanders are not on board with American infiltration or colonization. Forty-five percent even say that they view Trump himself as a threat.
The outright Greenlandic rejection of the threat of American rule has been met with fiery remarks from President Trump himself; he stated on Jan. 9 that the U.S. will seize control of Greenland, whether it be through “the easy way” or “the hard way.” He added that “we are going to do something on Greenland whether they like it or not.”
He also added that he would be more willing to make a deal “the easy way.” However, if that were true, then there would most likely already be plans set in motion to expand U.S. military involvement on Greenland, since the original agreement allows it.
Not only did President Trump comment on continuing the project of annexing Greenland, but one of his senior advisors, Stephen Miller, said that “Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland,” implying that the U.S. could invade Greenland on the grounds of having no militaristic competition.
This “just because we can” attitude can have dangerous repercussions, most significantly causing the end of NATO.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said that “if the U.S. chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the second World War.” Article 5 of NATO also states that an armed attack on one NATO member should be considered an attack on all NATO members, which could spiral into a larger international conflict.
Greenland’s Prime Minister said that “if we have to choose between the USA and Denmark here and now, we choose Denmark. We choose NATO, the Kingdom of Denmark and the EU,” furthering the idea that no involved party other than Trump wants a United States stamp on Greenland.
Seeing as U.S. military involvement in Greenland is already sanctioned, Greenland and Denmark both denounce a U.S. occupation, and a potential military strike could lead to the destruction of international law, the state of international affairs would be better off if the Trump administration could let go of its unnecessary desire for the arctic island.
