Trump’s Greenland Ambition Raises Alarm as White House Says All Options Remain Open

Former U.S. President Donald Trump’s long standing interest in acquiring Greenland has once again sparked global debate, after the White House confirmed that “all options are on the table,” including the possible use of force. While officials insist that military action is only one of several economic and political pathways under consideration, analysts warn that any attempt to seize Greenland by force would have catastrophic consequences for international law and the NATO alliance.

Trump has repeatedly argued that Greenland is critical to U.S. national security, alleging without providing evidence that Russian and Chinese vessels are operating extensively around the island. Greenland, the world’s largest island, is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark and a NATO partner, making any hostile action by the United States an unprecedented scenario of one alliance member turning on another.

Defence analysts agree that a rapid U.S. military operation to take Greenland would be technically feasible but politically explosive. Greenland has a population of about 58,000, with roughly one-third living in the capital, Nuuk. The island has no independent military, and Denmark’s defence presence is limited due to Greenland’s vast size and harsh Arctic terrain.

Much of the territory is patrolled only by the elite Danish Sirius Patrol, which relies largely on dog sleds. Although Denmark has increased defence spending in the Arctic and North Atlantic regions over the past year, its capabilities remain modest compared to U.S. military power.

The United States already maintains a permanent military presence at the Pituffik Space Base in north-western Greenland, with more than 100 personnel stationed there. Established during World War II, the base could theoretically serve as a logistical hub for broader operations.

Security experts suggest that U.S. Arctic-trained forces, including the Alaska-based 11th Airborne Division, could carry out a swift deployment supported by naval and air assets. Given Greenland’s sparse population, resistance would likely be minimal. However, former U.S. defence officials stress that such an action would violate international law and risk destroying NATO’s credibility.

“There is no legal or moral justification for attacking a treaty ally,” said one former senior U.S. defence official, noting that congressional opposition would almost certainly arise under the War Powers Act.

Another option often raised is the outright purchase of Greenland, an idea Trump famously floated during his first presidency. However, both the Greenlandic and Danish governments have firmly stated that the island is not for sale.

Reports from Washington suggest that purchasing Greenland is viewed by some officials as a preferred route, but the legal hurdles are enormous. Any deal would require congressional funding approval, ratification by two-thirds of the U.S. Senate, and consent from the European Union. Crucially, Greenland itself would have to be involved to satisfy international law and the principle of self-determination.

The cost of such a purchase is unknown, but estimates range from tens of billions to potentially trillions of dollars. That prospect could prove politically toxic domestically, particularly for an “America First” base sceptical of massive overseas spending.

Polling shows that while many Greenlanders favour eventual independence from Denmark, there is little appetite for becoming part of the United States. Still, analysts believe Washington could pursue a softer strategy aimed at influencing public opinion through economic incentives, investment promises, and political engagement.

Some U.S. media reports indicate that American intelligence agencies have increased their focus on Greenland’s independence movement, seeking to identify leaders who may support closer ties with Washington. Geopolitical experts argue that an influence campaign is far more realistic than military action.

One possible model is the U.S. relationship with Pacific island nations such as Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands. These countries are independent but grant the U.S. extensive defence rights in exchange for economic support and migration privileges. A similar arrangement could theoretically emerge with an independent Greenland.

However, critics argue that such partnerships would fall short of Trump’s apparent objective: direct control over Greenland’s vast untapped mineral resources, which are increasingly valuable amid global competition for rare earth elements and strategic materials.

Danish analysts note that any attempt to acquire Greenland without the consent of its people is unlikely to succeed. No major political party in Greenland currently supports joining the United States, and public sentiment remains firmly opposed to such a move.

“There is a difference between U.S. political timelines and Greenland’s historical perspective,” one Danish security expert observed. “American administrations think in four-year cycles. Greenland thinks in centuries.”

For now, the idea of Greenland re-joining the European Union appears more plausible than becoming a U.S. territory. While Trump’s rhetoric has reignited speculation, most experts believe that diplomatic engagement, not force or purchase, will define the future of U.S.–Greenland relations.

Still, the White House’s refusal to rule out any option has unsettled allies and raised uncomfortable questions about the stability of long-standing international norms in an increasingly competitive Arctic landscape.