Trump’s pressure over Greenland

Rene Chang [01/5/2026]

In 2019, Donald Trump’s interest in purchasing Greenland—the world’s largest island and a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark—was initially dismissed by many as a “real estate” whim. However, since he returned to the White House in 2025, the idea has developed from a diplomatic curiosity to a crucial, high-stakes pillar of American foreign and economic policy.

Early in January 2026, a renewed, aggressive push to acquire Greenland followed the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, significantly altering the global political landscape.

It wasn’t a coincidence. The sequence of events was a purposeful signal of the “Donroe Doctrine” (a 21st-century revival of the Monroe Doctrine), claiming complete American dominance in the Western Hemisphere and the Arctic, according to statements from the White House and geopolitical analysts.

The story began in August 2019, when President Trump first proposed buying Greenland, calling it “essentially a large real estate deal.” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen immediately rejected this initial overture, calling it “absurd,” a response that caused Trump to abruptly cancel a planned state visit to Denmark. The goal was put on hold until January 2025, when Trump repeated his desire for the island’s possession after his second inauguration, presenting it as a vital component of “national and economic security.”

Why Greenland?

Greenland’s strategic significance comes from its location as the western corner of the GIUK gap, a crucial maritime route connecting Greenland, Iceland, and the United Kingdom. By controlling this “choke point,” the United States could monitor and restrict enemy movements with much greater precision, thereby securing the northern approaches to the American homeland. This passage is the main entry point for Chinese and Russian naval vessels moving from the Arctic into the North Atlantic.

The island is a geological powerhouse in addition to its military significance. Greenland is becoming an essential supplier of rare earth minerals like lithium, neodymium, and graphite as the retreating Arctic ice reveals enormous, unexplored reserves. Greenlandic resources offer the United States a strategic chance to achieve long-term resource independence in a world economy that currently depends on China’s near-monopoly of these materials, which are necessary for everything from powerful fighter jets to high-tech smartphones.

In addition, the opening of the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route due to climate change is turning the Arctic into a commercial frontier. By avoiding the congested Suez and Panama Canals, these new shipping lanes have the potential to reduce traditional travel times between Asia and Europe by thousands of miles. The United States would position itself as the “toll keeper” of the most important new trade routes of the twenty-first century by establishing a sovereign presence in Greenland, guaranteeing that American interests control the flow of international trade in the High North.

Greenland’s Response:

Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen has repeatedly insisted in Nuuk’s capital that “Greenland is not for sale,” stressing that although Greenlandic leaders hope to eventually gain independence from Denmark, they do not intend to “switch colonial masters.” Nielsen has also made it clear that discussions about the island’s future must respect its red lines and sovereignty, including complete control over its own mineral resources.

The pressure from Washington has been denounced by Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen in Copenhagen as “disrespectful” and an obvious infraction of international law. Denmark has substantially increased its military presence on the island, deploying elite combat units and launching “Operation Arctic Endurance” to support this diplomatic position with physical deterrence. These drills, which include naval maneuvers with European frigates and air patrols by Danish F-35s, are intended to show that NATO is prepared to defend the region against any possible annexation attempt.

This resolve was mirrored by the European Union, which warned that the proposed tariffs could cause a “downward spiral” in transatlantic relations while promising complete solidarity with Denmark. Leaders of the European Union, such as Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and French President Emmanuel Macron, have made it clear that they are ready to use the “Anti-Coercion Instrument”—a highly effective economic retaliatory tool—to shield member states from what they refer to as “territorial blackmail.” This united front implies that any attempt to compel Greenland to change its status could essentially bring an end to the NATO alliance as it has always been.

What’s next?

The state of affairs is still unstable. If a deal cannot be reached, Trump has threatened to raise tariffs to 25% by June 1, 2026. The Arctic is now at the epicenter of international geopolitical tension as a result of this “coercive diplomacy.”

Bibliography: