Trump Has His Eyes on Greenland: When the Arctic Becomes a Matter of Absolute Power

The Great Power Game

Why does Trump want Greenland? The answer can be summed up in two words: national security. Vance, his vice president, made this clear in a recent interview: the missile defense infrastructure depends in part on Greenland. If, God forbid, a nuclear missile were launched against America or Europe, Greenland would be a critical component of the defense system. The problem, according to the Trump administration, is that Denmark is incapable of defending the island against Russia or China. Trump put it bluntly: “The problem is that there’s nothing Denmark can do if Russia or China wants to occupy Greenland.” It’s a clever argument. It invokes an external threat to justify internal control.

The reality is more nuanced. Greenland is already part of NATO. As a Danish territory, it is covered by Article 5, the mutual defense clause. If Russia or China were to attack Greenland, all NATO allies, including the United States, would be obligated to intervene. Pituffik Space Base, the U.S. military facility on the island, has existed since 1943. The Americans are already there. They can already develop their defense capabilities there. Troy Bouffard, director of the Center for Arctic Security and Resilience at the University of Alaska, has made it clear: to adapt defense systems to new threats such as Russian hypersonic missiles, it is not necessary to own Greenland. The existing infrastructure is sufficient. Normal cooperation among allies would suffice. But Trump does not want cooperation. He wants ownership.

The riches beneath the ice

While defense is the public justification, resources are the private draw. Greenland has the eighth-largest reserves of rare earth elements in the world. These elements are essential for everything: wind turbines, smartphones, guided missile systems, green technologies, and advanced electronics. China currently dominates the rare earth market. For Washington, controlling Greenland’s reserves would be a way to reduce this dependence. There’s one problem: none of these resources have been mined to date. Greenland is cold. It is covered in ice. It has only 93 miles of paved roads. Meredith Schwartz, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, explained it this way: mining rare earths in Greenland requires massive, long-term investments in infrastructure that does not yet exist. The first mines won’t open anytime soon.

I understand the geopolitical strategy. I understand that rare earth elements are important. But what I don’t understand is how anyone can justify taking control of an entire territory just because they want its resources. That’s the logic of plunder—the same logic that justified colonialism for centuries. “You have something I want? I’m going to take it from you.” In 2026, really? Are we still at this point? And then there’s this obsession with national security… How far will we go? If Canada has oil, should we annex it? If Mexico has minerals, should we invade it? Where does the logic of power end?

Allies on Edge

The European response was immediate and firm. As soon as Trump began talking about “taking” Greenland, European capitals reacted. Emmanuel Macron announced that France would participate in the Danish military exercises in Greenland, dubbed “Arctic Endurance.” Sweden sent troops. Germany dispatched a reconnaissance team of 13 soldiers. Norway sent defense personnel. This is a clear message: Europe will not accept Greenland being taken by force. The message carries even more weight coming from Germany, whose Ramstein Air Base is crucial for U.S. operations in Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. If the United States were to attack Denmark, Europeans could restrict access to these bases. The cost to U.S. strategy would be enormous.

Ulrik Pram Gad, a researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies, summed up the situation: Europeans understand that they will have to develop sufficient defense capabilities to no longer depend on the United States. “This is linked to general doubts about the Western alliance—whether or not to trust the United States, once again,” he said. The Trump of 2026 is breaking something that has held the West together since 1949: trust. When one ally treats another ally as a target for acquisition, something irreparable is broken. Europeans will not forget this.

Article 5: NATO’s Suicide

The most serious problem is NATO. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty obligates all members to defend one another if any one of them is attacked. Article 5 has been invoked only once in history: by the United States after the September 11, 2001, attacks. Denmark responded. Thousands of Danish soldiers fought in Iraq and Afghanistan alongside the Americans. Fifty of them died. If Trump attacks Greenland, Denmark will invoke Article 5. And then, NATO will face an impossible dilemma: defending an ally attacked by another ally. The consequence? The end of the alliance. Mette Frederiksen has been clear: if the United States chooses to attack another NATO country, it will all come to an end.

Imagine for a moment. Seventy-seven years of alliance, thousands of soldiers who died side by side, decades of trust built on blood and sacrifice. And all of that, destroyed because… of what? Because a president wants an island? It’s hard to believe. It’s as if a husband murdered his wife because he wanted her jewelry. The relationship won’t survive. NATO won’t survive. And then what? Who will protect us? Who will protect Europe? Who will protect the world? Trump is playing with fire, and he may not realize that the whole house is going to burn down.

What International Law Says

Attacking Greenland would be illegal. Period. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which the United States has signed and ratified, prohibits any act of aggression against the territorial integrity of another state. Milena Sterio, a professor of international law at Cleveland State University, confirmed this: any military action against Greenland would be a violation of both international law and U.S. law, which incorporates international law. The problem is that Trump has already shown that he cares little for legal constraints when they get in his way. Daniel Immerwahr, a historian at Northwestern University and author of a book on the American empire, noted that the Constitution prohibits the executive branch from unilaterally adding territory, but that this constraint has generally not been limiting. Presidential action has often paved the way, followed by congressional ratification.

The constitutional question is fascinating. Can territory be annexed without consent? The Constitution does not explicitly provide for the acquisition of territory. The closest precedent is perhaps the purchase of Louisiana in 1803, Alaska in 1867, and Hawai’i in 1898. But in all these cases, there was a purchase, a treaty, and consent. Taking by force is something else entirely. It is conquest. And conquest, in the 21st century, is illegal. Period. UN experts have stated this unequivocally: any attempt to alter Greenland’s territorial or constitutional status would not only violate international law but could also undermine regional stability.

The Right to Self-Determination

There is another principle at play: the right to self-determination. The people of Greenland, as a distinct people, have the right to freely determine their political status. UN experts have emphasized that assertions suggesting a territory can be taken, controlled, or “possessed” by another state for the purpose of pursuing perceived security or economic interests evoke a logic of colonial domination that the international community has long rejected. The Greenlanders are not commodities. They are a people. They have the right to say no. And so far, they have said no.

International law. It exists. It’s not just an abstract concept for diplomats. It’s what protects us. It’s what prevents the strong from devouring the weak. It’s what prevented Germany from annexing Czechoslovakia in 1938. It’s what prevented Iraq from annexing Kuwait in 1990. And today, Trump wants to ignore all of that? Because it suits him? That’s frightening. Truly frightening. Because if the United States can violate international law with impunity, then who can’t? What example are we setting for the world? What example are we setting for our children? That the law applies only to the weak? That the powerful can do whatever they want?

The Forgotten Faces of Greenland

When we talk about Greenland, we talk about geopolitics, strategy, resources, and defense. We often forget to talk about the people—the 56,000 residents, mostly Inuit, who live on this gigantic island, twice the size of France but with fewer inhabitants than a small European town. Fishermen who venture out onto the pack ice to hunt seals and walruses. Children growing up amid ice and snow, learning the traditions of their ancestors. Families gathering in colorful houses in Nuuk, Illulissat, Sisimiut, and Qaanaaq. Lives. Stories. Dreams. Fears, too. Fear of what’s to come. Fear of what will happen.

Ineqi Kielsen, a 28-year-old hunter who lives in Uummannaq, in northern Greenland, looks out at the sea every day. He tells his children that the ice is melting faster every year. He also tells them that foreign ships are passing by closer and closer. Military ships. Research vessels. Ships whose intentions he doesn’t know. “We’ve lived here for millennia,” he says. “We’ve survived the cold, famines, and epidemics. We’ll survive this, too.” But his eyes betray a worry he cannot hide. How can you protect yourself when there are only 56,000 of you facing 330 million? How can you make yourself heard when the world doesn’t speak your language?

A Culture That Endures

Greenland is also home to a millennia-old culture. A language, Kalaallisut, that has resonated for generations. Traditional songs and the drum dance that set the rhythm for the long winter nights. Tales that recount the origin of the world, spirits, and ancestors. A worldview that places community above the individual, nature above technology. This culture has survived centuries of Danish colonization. It has survived attempts at forced conversion to Christianity, the banning of shamanic practices, and the suppression of the language in schools. Today, it is being reborn. Young Greenlanders are rediscovering their roots. They wear traditional clothing made of sealskin. They sing the songs of their ancestors. They are asserting their identity. And this identity—they do not want to sell it.

I think of Ineqi. I think of her children. I think of what they will go through. Of how their very existence has become a geopolitical issue over which they have no control. That is what angers me the most. Not the strategies, not the power plays, not the national interests. It’s the fact that human lives—thousands of human lives—are treated like variables in an equation that has nothing to do with them. Ineqi doesn’t want to be American. He doesn’t want to be Danish. He wants to be Greenlandic. That’s all. Is that too much to ask? Apparently, yes.

Stephen Miller and the Threat of Force

On January 6, 2026, Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff, gave an interview to CNN. Jake Tapper asked him whether the administration had ruled out the use of force to take Greenland. Miller refused to answer. “We live in a world where you can talk all you want about international niceties and all that,” he said. “But we live in a world—the real world—that is governed by force, that is governed by power.” The message was clear. Force is an option. And if Trump decides to use it, nothing will stop him.

But how? A military invasion? A naval blockade? A political coup? The scenarios are multiplying. Otto Svendsen, a European security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, warned against what he calls the “second-order effects” of such a crisis. A U.S. attack on Greenland would trigger “very robust European reactions.” Punitive trade measures targeting U.S. industries in swing states. Restrictions on access to European territory for U.S. military bases. A rupture in transatlantic relations that could last for decades.

The calm before the storm

For now, nothing has happened yet. The January 14 meeting resulted in the creation of a “high-level working group” to explore the possibilities of an agreement. Rasmussen spoke of “cautious optimism.” But behind the scenes, preparations continue. Germany is sending 13 soldiers on a reconnaissance mission. France is deploying troops for Arctic Endurance. Sweden, Norway, and Denmark are bolstering their military presence. Europe is preparing for the worst. Trump, for his part, continues to say that he will not “rule out any options.” The words hang in the air, heavy with menace.

And then… nothing. The silence of the Greenlandic fjords, unchanged for millennia. The silence of the American media, which pays little attention to this distant crisis. The silence of the diplomats, who keep talking but don’t know what to say. The silence of the Greenlanders, who wait and fear. Like the silence before a storm. When the air grows heavy. When the birds fall silent. When you know something is going to happen, but you don’t know what, or when, or how.

This silence frightens me more than anything. Because in the silence, things are being set in motion. In the silence, decisions are being made. In the silence, worlds are turned upside down without anyone noticing until it’s too late. Trump is in power. Miller is by his side. And Greenland is there, small, fragile, vulnerable, like a child lost in the storm. I pray that the storm will pass. I pray that Greenland will remain free. But I fear our prayers won’t be enough.

The Arguments For and Against

There are those who support Trump: the hawks in the Republican Party who see Greenland as a major strategic opportunity, and military analysts who fear Russian and Chinese expansion in the Arctic. Industrialists who dream of gaining access to the island’s mineral resources. For them, acquiring Greenland is a matter of national survival. The arguments are solid from a strategic standpoint. The Arctic is becoming increasingly accessible due to global warming. Northern trade routes are opening up. Resource reserves are becoming exploitable. Russia is building military bases there. China is investing heavily there. If the United States fails to respond, it risks being left behind. This is the logic of realpolitik: what we do not occupy will be occupied by others.

There are those who oppose this. Democrats who see this ambition as further proof of Trump’s irresponsibility. European allies who fear the destruction of NATO. Experts in international law who point out that annexation is illegal. Human rights advocates who emphasize the right of peoples to self-determination. For them, the acquisition of Greenland would be a geopolitical, legal, and moral catastrophe. It would destroy the transatlantic alliance. It would violate international law. It would disregard the rights of a small people. It would send a terrifying message to the world: the law does not apply to the powerful.

American Public Opinion

What do Americans think of all this? A recent YouGov poll shows that few Americans want to take control of Greenland. Most oppose covert operations or military action. Public opinion is divided, but largely hostile to the idea of a forced acquisition. The problem is that public opinion has little influence on U.S. foreign policy, especially when a determined president is in office. Trump has shown time and again that he does not hesitate to ignore public opinion when it runs counter to his goals. And the Greenlanders know this. They know that their fate does not depend on what Americans think. It depends on what Trump wants.

That’s what strikes me the most—this gap between the people and their leaders. Americans don’t want this. Europeans don’t want this. Greenlanders don’t want this. But Trump? Trump wants it. And it’s Trump who decides. Is that what democracy is? A man who can ignore everyone and do whatever he wants? It makes me want to scream. But I can’t scream. I can only write. And writing is screaming. Screaming against injustice. Screaming against arrogance. Screaming for those who cannot scream.

Possible Scenarios

What will happen now? No one knows for sure. There are many possible scenarios. The most optimistic: the working group reaches a compromise. The United States secures enhanced security guarantees for Greenland—perhaps a strengthened military presence—in exchange for formal recognition of Danish sovereignty and Greenland’s right to self-determination. Trump comes out ahead: greater security. The Danes and Greenlanders retain their sovereignty. Everyone wins. It’s possible. Rasmussen spoke of “cautious optimism.”

The most pessimistic scenario: Trump loses patience. He decides that diplomacy isn’t working. He gives the order to act. How? A naval blockade of Greenland to force Copenhagen to give in? A military occupation of Pituffik Space Base followed by an ultimatum? A political power grab using economic pressure on Denmark? The scenarios are all terrifying. And the consequences would be catastrophic. NATO would collapse. Europe would look elsewhere. International law would be violated. The Greenlanders would become subjects of a new power against their will.

The Moment That Changes Everything

There is a moment in every crisis when everything changes. A moment when we shift from diplomacy to conflict. A moment when words are no longer enough. A moment when someone must make an irreversible decision. We may be at that moment now. Trump has said he will not “rule out any options.” Miller has refused to rule out the use of force. The Europeans are bolstering their military presence. The Greenlanders are waiting, anxious. Something is going to happen. Maybe tomorrow. Maybe next week. Maybe next month. But something is going to happen.

And then what? Then, the world will have changed. Either the West will have survived this ordeal, strengthened by a new unity. Or the West will have crumbled, torn apart by excessive ambition. As for the Greenlanders, they will remain. On their island. In their ice. With their culture. Perhaps free, perhaps under a new yoke. But they will remain. For Greenland has survived thousands of years of history. It will survive Trump, too. The question is: at what cost?

I don’t know what’s going to happen. No one does. But I know one thing: we’re at a tipping point. A moment when history is about to take a different turn. In one direction, a world where law and cooperation prevail. In the other, a world where force and the appetite for power reign. Trump is pulling in one direction. The Europeans are pulling in the other. The Greenlanders are caught in the middle, like a rope in a tug-of-war they didn’t ask to play. And we are watching. We are watching and waiting. We, who were born into a world of alliances and cooperation, are wondering if that world is disappearing before our very eyes.

Back to Basics

We’ve talked a lot about geopolitics. About strategy. About resources. About defense. About the law. About alliances. But deep down, all that is just noise. What really matters are the people. Ineqi and her children. The thousands of women who were forced to have IUDs inserted. The children torn from their families to be “re-educated.” The fishermen who have been venturing out onto the pack ice for generations. The young Greenlanders who are rediscovering their culture. The 56,000 inhabitants of this vast island who simply want to decide their own future.

That’s the real question. Not: Will Trump take over Greenland? But: Will the Greenlanders have the right to be themselves? The right to say yes or no. The right to choose their own destiny. The right to be free. That’s what’s at stake. Everything else is just justification. Everything else is just rationalization. Trump talks about security. Vance talks about defense. Miller talks about strength. But deep down, it’s simple: one people wants to be free. And another people wants to own them.

I think back to Ineqi. To the way he looks out at the sea every day. To the fear in his eyes that he tries to hide from his children. I wonder what he would say to Trump if he could speak to him face to face. I wonder if Trump would listen. I wonder if an American president—the leader of the free world—has ever truly listened to someone like Ineqi. Someone who doesn’t speak his language. Someone who doesn’t have his power. Someone who is nothing, in the grand scheme of things, except a human being who wants to live his life.And then I wonder: what would Trump say to Ineqi? That he wants to protect him? That he wants to provide him with security? That he wants to save him from Russia and China? Or simply: “You have something I want. Give it to me.” The world is watching. History is watching. Future generations will be watching. They will know what we did when a small people was threatened by a great power. They will know whether we defended what is right or whether we yielded to force. They will know whether the West we built—on the ruins of colonialism and world wars—was solid or whether it was just a house of cards ready to collapse.Greenland cannot be sold. It cannot be bought. It cannot be taken. Because it belongs to no one except those who live there. That is the lesson colonialism has never learned. That is the lesson imperialism has never learned. And that is the lesson Trump has never learned. People are not commodities. Territories are not property. Freedom is not negotiable. Greenland will be free. Or Greenland will be destroyed. But it will never be owned.