Donald Trump’s Push For Greenland: What It Means for U.S., Denmark, and Greenland

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump has once again expressed his ambition to make Greenland a part of the United States. Speaking on Truth Social, Trump called Greenland “an incredible place” and claimed that its integration into the U.S. would benefit its people tremendously. “This is a deal that must happen,” Trump reiterated, while his son, Donald Trump Jr., was reportedly on a private visit to Greenland.

This is not the first time Trump has shown interest in the mineral-rich and strategically significant Arctic island. In 2019, his proposal to purchase Greenland from Denmark was met with outright rejection, sparking global headlines and diplomatic controversy.

Why Greenland? The U.S. Strategic Interest

Greenland’s importance stems from its location and resources. The island, part of NATO via Denmark’s membership, is critical for U.S. military strategy. The Pituffik Air Base in northwest Greenland supports ballistic missile early-warning systems and monitors Russian naval activity in the Arctic.

“Greenland is geographically part of the North American continent, and it is vital for the United States to prevent any other major powers from establishing a foothold there,” explained Ulrik Pram Gad, a senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies.

Additionally, Greenland is a treasure trove of untapped resources. A 2023 survey identified 25 out of 34 minerals deemed “critical raw materials” by the European Commission. These include rare earth elements essential for electric vehicles and wind turbines, along with graphite and lithium used in batteries.

However, environmental concerns and local opposition have slowed Greenland’s resource development. Fishing dominates its economy, accounting for over 95% of exports, while Denmark provides subsidies covering half the island’s public budget.

Greenland’s Sovereignty and the Push for Independence

Greenland has been part of Denmark for over 600 years. As a semi-sovereign territory under Danish rule, it controls most domestic affairs but remains subject to Denmark’s constitution. A 2009 self-governance agreement granted Greenland the right to declare independence via a referendum.

Prime Minister Mute Egede, a proponent of independence, has made it clear that Greenland is not for sale. “It is up to Greenlanders to decide their future,” he has emphasized. Still, full independence seems economically unfeasible for many Greenlanders due to their reliance on Danish subsidies.

Some speculate that if Greenland were to gain independence, it might seek a “free association” agreement with the U.S., similar to the status of Pacific nations like Micronesia. However, as Ulrik Pram Gad points out, “Greenlanders don’t want to trade one colonial master for another.”

Denmark’s Stance on Trump’s Proposal

Denmark, a close NATO ally of the U.S., has firmly rejected Trump’s ambitions. In 2019, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called Trump’s proposal “absurd.” When asked about Trump’s renewed interest, Frederiksen reiterated that Greenland’s future rests solely with its people.

“We need very close cooperation with the Americans,” Frederiksen stated. “On the other hand, I encourage everyone to respect that the Greenlanders are a people, it is their country, and only they can determine its future.”

Greenland’s Position Amid Rising Tensions

Greenlandic politicians have shown interest in strengthening ties with the U.S. but reject the idea of a U.S. takeover. Aaja Chemnitz, a Greenlandic representative in the Danish parliament, criticized Trump’s proposal: “I don’t want to be a pawn in Trump’s hot dreams of expanding his empire.”

The island’s push for independence has also revealed lingering tensions between Greenland and Denmark. Historical grievances and dissatisfaction with the colonial past have fueled calls for greater autonomy.

The majority of Greenlanders support independence but remain cautious about its implications for their standard of living. Economic reliance on Denmark poses a significant hurdle to achieving full sovereignty.