Why Does Trump Want Greenland? The Geopolitical Battle for the Arctic
17 January 2026 – The question of why former and current US President Donald Trump wants to acquire Greenland is not a new one, but it has taken on renewed urgency and strategic complexity since his return to the White House in 2025. The answer lies in a potent mix of historical ambition, strategic competition with Russia and China, and the vast untapped resources of the world’s largest island.
A Persistent Ambition
Donald Trump’s interest in Greenland dates back to his first term, when in 2019 he publicly expressed his desire for the United States to purchase the autonomous Danish territory. The proposal was swiftly and unequivocally rejected by Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who described it as “absurd.”
However, Trump’s fixation on Greenland did not end with that rejection. During his second presidency, which began in 2025, he has increasingly asserted that the US must acquire Greenland as part of a broader policy of what he terms “American expansionism.” Following repeated refusals by both Greenlandic and Danish authorities to even entertain the idea of selling the country, Trump has escalated his rhetoric, threatening to invade or annex Greenland. This has triggered what is now widely referred to as the “Greenland crisis.”
Strategic Rationale: Location, Resources, and Rivalry
Greenland’s immense size—four times the area of France—and its location in the Arctic Circle make it a geostrategic prize. As climate change accelerates the melting of Arctic ice, new shipping routes are opening, reducing travel times between Asia, Europe, and North America. Greenland sits astride these emerging corridors, including the potential future Transpolar Sea Route.
But beyond its location, Greenland is believed to hold vast untapped natural resources. These include oil and natural gas reserves, as well as rare earth minerals (REEs) that are critical for modern technologies, from smartphones and electric vehicles to advanced military equipment. The United States, like many other nations, is heavily dependent on China for the supply of these rare earths. Securing access to alternative sources is a matter of national security and economic resilience.
Key Facts: The Greenland Crisis
| Factor | Detail |
|---|---|
| Historical Precedent | The US has attempted to purchase Greenland multiple times, most notably in 1946 when President Harry Truman offered Denmark $100 million in gold bullion. The offer was declined. |
| Trump’s Stated Reasons | 1. National Security: To counter Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic. 2. Economic Security: To access rare earth minerals and other natural resources. 3. Legacy Building: To secure his place in history by expanding US territory. |
| Greenland’s Status | An autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. It has its own government and parliament, but Denmark handles foreign affairs, defence, and monetary policy. Greenland has the right to declare independence. |
| Military Significance | Greenland hosts the US Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), a key site for ballistic missile early warning and space surveillance. Control of Greenland would provide the US with a northern staging ground for military operations and intelligence gathering. |
| Chinese and Russian Interests | Both China and Russia have significantly increased their activities in the Arctic in recent years. Russia has reopened old Soviet military bases and constructed new ones, while China has invested heavily in infrastructure and scientific research in the region. |
| Environmental and Indigenous Concerns | Any US attempt to take control of Greenland would face significant opposition from environmental groups and the indigenous Inuit population, who have a strong voice in Greenlandic politics. |
Frequently Asked Questions
Why does Trump want Greenland so much?
Trump has framed his desire for Greenland as a matter of national security, economic opportunity, and securing his legacy as a president who expanded US territory. He has repeatedly pointed to the island’s strategic location in the Arctic, its vast resources, and the need to prevent rivals like Russia and China from gaining a foothold there.
Is there any legal basis for the US to claim or purchase Greenland?
No. Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Any change to its status would require a referendum in Greenland and approval by the Danish Parliament. The US has no legal claim to Greenland, and any attempt to seize it by force would be a clear violation of international law and likely trigger a major international crisis.
What are the main resources in Greenland that the US is interested in?
The primary resources are believed to be rare earth minerals (REEs), which are essential for many modern technologies. Greenland is also thought to have significant deposits of other minerals, as well as potential oil and natural gas reserves. However, the exact extent and commercial viability of these resources remain uncertain due to the challenges of extraction in the harsh Arctic environment.
How has climate change made Greenland more accessible and strategically important?
Climate change is causing the Arctic ice to melt at an unprecedented rate, opening up new shipping routes and making previously inaccessible areas of Greenland more accessible. This has increased the island’s strategic importance as a potential hub for future trade and military operations. Additionally, the melting ice is exposing more land and potentially making resource extraction more feasible.
What has been the reaction of Denmark and Greenland to Trump’s threats?
Both the Danish and Greenlandic governments have consistently and firmly rejected any notion of selling or ceding Greenland to the United States. They have reiterated that Greenland is not for sale and that its future lies in its eventual independence from Denmark, not in becoming part of the US.
Could the US actually take Greenland by force?
While theoretically possible, such an action would be an act of war against Denmark, a NATO ally. It would almost certainly trigger Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, meaning an attack on one NATO member would be considered an attack on all. The political, military, and economic consequences would be catastrophic, making it an extremely unlikely and irrational course of action.