US President frames ownership as necessary defense against Russia and China expansion

President Donald Trump has renewed his controversial assertion that the United States must “own” Greenland to prevent Russia and China from expanding their strategic presence in the Arctic, sending diplomatic shockwaves through Europe and reigniting debates over American power projection.

Arctic Security at the Forefront

Trump’s rationale centers on national security concerns in the rapidly changing Arctic landscape. As melting ice opens new maritime routes, the president argues that Washington cannot allow adversaries to establish a foothold in America’s neighborhood. He positions Greenland as a critical defensive buffer rather than a target of territorial aggression.

Greenland, an autonomous Danish territory, already hosts the US military’s Thule Air Base, established during World War II. Trump now proposes expanding American presence there, with White House sources describing the Arctic as an emerging theater of strategic competition involving missile trajectories, satellite monitoring, and naval access.

Strategic Value Beyond Geography

The island’s importance extends beyond location. Greenland sits astride critical Arctic routes, making it essential for missile defense systems protecting North America from potential Eurasian threats. Any intercontinental ballistic missile fired from distant ice sheets toward North America would likely pass over or near Greenland, establishing it as a natural node for early-warning systems and air defense.

The territory also holds an estimated 8-9 percent of the world’s untapped rare earth resources—minerals crucial for defense technology, electric vehicles, and semiconductors. With China currently dominating global rare earth supply chains, Greenland represents a potential counterweight in an increasingly contested market.

European Allies Push Back

Denmark has firmly rejected any notion of selling or ceding Greenland. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has repeatedly emphasized that Greenland’s future must be determined by its own people, not external powers. Danish officials maintain their position aligns with international law and NATO principles.

Across Europe, Trump’s rhetoric has revived concerns about American unilateralism. NATO members privately worry such statements undermine alliance cohesion precisely when unity against Russia remains critical.

The Arctic Chessboard

While Trump publicly emphasizes threats from Russia and China, Moscow has remained relatively quiet. Analysts suggest Vladimir Putin may benefit by allowing Washington to absorb diplomatic costs with European allies. China, however, has warned that Greenland’s status falls under international law and opposes unilateral changes. Beijing has steadily increased Arctic research missions and investments, describing itself as a “near-Arctic state.”

Experts characterize Greenland as a silent chessboard where major powers engage in strategic maneuvering without direct confrontation.

Contrasting Diplomatic Approaches

Trump’s aggressive posture toward Greenland stands in stark contrast to Washington’s softened rhetoric toward India. Recently appointed US Ambassador to India Sergio Gor declared India “America’s most important strategic partner,” signaling progress toward a long-awaited trade agreement.

The divergence is notable: Europe receives ultimatums while New Delhi receives reassurances—underscoring India’s centrality to Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy amid intensifying US-China competition. Diplomats suggest maintaining Indian alignment will prove crucial if tensions escalate over Greenland or other flashpoints.

Domestic Political Calculations

Political analysts contend Trump’s Greenland rhetoric serves domestic purposes. Facing legal challenges, economic pressures, and fluctuating approval ratings, the president appears to be following a familiar playbook—externalizing threats to energize his political base.

“Nearly every spike in Trump’s foreign policy rhetoric follows domestic pressure points,” observed a senior US political analyst. Supporters view it as decisive leadership; critics dismiss it as distraction.

Alternative Strategic Options

Defense strategists argue annexation isn’t necessary to advance Washington’s interests. Viable alternatives include increasing military deployments under existing agreements, negotiating exclusive resource extraction rights with Greenland authorities, strengthening NATO’s Arctic posture, and using diplomatic pressure to block Chinese investments.

Many of these options are already operational, raising questions about why Trump continues invoking “ownership.”

Looking Ahead

Trump’s renewed push has undeniably elevated global tensions. Greenland, once peripheral to world politics, now stands at the intersection of sovereignty debates, security concerns, and great-power competition.

Whether Trump’s rhetoric translates into concrete policy remains uncertain. What is clear: the Arctic is no longer geopolitically frozen—and Greenland sits at the center of this thaw.

Key Questions

Why does Trump want US ownership of Greenland?
Trump argues controlling Greenland is essential to prevent Russia and China from gaining strategic Arctic access.

Could the US legally claim Greenland?
No. Greenland is part of Denmark, and any status change would require consent under international law.

Does the US have military presence in Greenland?
Yes. The US has long maintained operations at Thule Air Base.

How has Denmark responded?
Denmark has firmly rejected any takeover, insisting Greenland’s future lies with its own people.

Why is Greenland strategically important?
Its location is vital for missile defense, Arctic shipping routes, and access to rare earth minerals.

References

Latest News on Trump & Greenland Arctic Security

🔗 Reuters — Greenland says it should be defended by NATO, rejects any US takeover
https://www.reuters.com/world/greenland-says-it-will-boost-efforts-ensure-its-defence-is-supported-by-nato-2026-01-12/

🔗 Reuters — European commissioner says US military takeover of Greenland would be end of NATO
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/european-commissioner-says-us-military-takeover-greenland-would-be-end-nato-2026-01-12/

🔗 The Guardian — Greenland says it cannot accept US takeover ‘under any circumstances’
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/12/greenland-cant-under-any-circumstances-accept-us-takeover-and-is-boosting-defences

🔗 AP News — How NATO works at a time of Trump’s Greenland threats
https://apnews.com/article/4907c132b499531d8d5fe6cd549c0beb

🔗 Times of India — Working to boost Arctic security amid US Greenland threat
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/working-to-boost-arctic-security-nato-chief-amid-us-greenland-threat-donald-trump-claims-credit-for-it-too/articleshow/126486459.cms

🔗 Le Monde — Europe rejects US threats over Greenland sovereignty
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/01/07/greenland-europe-rejects-us-threats-over-sovereignty-but-finds-options-limited_6749175_4.html