Trump in Greenland? Understanding US interests in Greenland after the Venezuelan Intervention

Key takeaways:

●       Following the 03 January 2026 US military intervention in Venezuela, concerns over Trump’s ambition to take over Greenland were renewed.

●       The Trump administration reportedly does not exclude using military or economic force to take over Greenland, leading many European leaders to signal the end of NATO if the US were to intervene in the nation.

●       The critical minerals found in Greenland are significant to US and private company interests in terms of defence and green technologies development.

On 03 January 2026, the United States launched a military strike on Venezuela, capturing President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. The contentious intervention saw the US Armed Forces bomb infrastructure in northern Venezuela and the capture of Maduro in his compound in Caracas in order to be brought to trial in New York City. The strike came as a shock to many news outlets and world governments. Many started drawing links to US President Trump’s public coveting of Greenland: if he were capable of launching a military operation in Venezuela and potentially violating international law, what would stop him from taking over a territory that he has long sought to own?

Trump’s interest in Greenland first manifested in August 2019, during his first presidency, when he first disclosed his desire to purchase the semi-autonomous region from Denmark, stating that “essentially it’s a large real estate deal” and would serve well as a US hub in the Arctic. As president-elect ahead of his second term, Trump declared his ownership of Greenland to be of “absolute necessity” for “purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World,” and the Danish government subsequently renewed its defence spending for Greenland.

On 07 January 2025, Trump declared he would not rule out using military or economic coercion to acquire Greenland, despite Mette Frederiksen, the Danish Prime Minister, stating that “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders”. In March of the same year, US Vice-President JD Vance called for Greenlanders to sever ties with Denmark, stating the country had not done enough to protect the territory. On 05 January 2026, two days after the US military intervention in Venezuela, Stephen Miller, the US Homeland Security Advisor, stated that “obviously Greenland should be part of the US” and that “[n]obody’s going to fight the US over the future of Greenland.” Two days later, 07 January 2026, the White House echoed their previous claims, stating that Trump and his advisers are discussions the potential avenues to take over Greenland, not excluding military use.

Image showing the US Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland

Greenland has long been a topic of discussion among US strategists. During the Nazi occupation of Denmark in 1940, the US declared Greenland a US protectorate. After WWII, the US offered to buy Greenland for 100€ million; after Denmark refused, the US and Denmark signed a 1951 agreement granting the US the rights to conduct military exercises and build military facilities in Greenland under a NATO mutual defence agreement against the Soviet sphere. Today, the US still maintains its military presence in Greenland through its Pituffik Space Base, where 100 military personnel are permanently stationed. Due to a 2004 amendment, the US is mandated to consult with Denmark and Greenland ahead of changes it wishes to make in its military operations on the island. In practice, as long as American forces remain reasonable, their requests would not be declined.

Danish defence analysts thus have a hard time understanding why the US does not just enhance its military operations under the defence agreement if it has security preoccupations in the region. The case of Trump's desire to take over Greenland is hence shrouded in fog: if the Trump administration’s interests in the island are not purely security-related, then what are they? If a full military takeover is not warranted, then what are Trump’s other interests in Greenland? While there is no clear answer, and an attempt at defining US ambitions in a Greenlandic takeover might veer into the speculative, an understanding of the situation and threats can be gleaned.

President Trump’s Claims over Greenland

To Trump, taking over Greenland is a matter of “national security” and an “important foreign policy goal”. In these White House discussions, using military means remains an option. Most recently, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers that the Trump administration is likely not going to invade Greenland, but instead look into buying the island from Denmark. Rather, the US plans on building a strong commercial relationship with the territory in a way that would benefit Americans. Acquiring Greenland is seen as necessary to the Trump administration due to its perceived threats. According to a White House spokesperson, US adversary nations have established themselves on the island. Greenland offers a strategic stronghold for Russian and Chinese ships, and Trump claims Denmark is not strong enough to safeguard its integrity.

The rise in Russian and Chinese military activity in the Arctic is a threat directly cited by the Trump administration as the main motivator for a potential takeover. NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Alexus Grynkewich said there was "no immediate threat" to NATO territory, but a rising number of Russian and Chinese vessels along Russia’s northern coast, as well as around Alaska and Canada, could pose a growing threat, especially as ice continues to recede due to global warming.

For Trump, “owning” Greenland is necessary as it preempts Russia and China from doing the same. According to the president, Greenland is “covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place.” This is despite NATO intelligence briefings reporting to the Financial Times that there is no evidence corroborating Trump’s statements on Russian or Chinese ships or submarines patrolling around Greenland in recent years. Nordic officials claim Russian or Chinese activity around Greenland is minimal, where Russian submarines tend to favour navigating near Norwegian waters.

Why Greenland?

Greenland holds a population of 57,000 people and has been self-governed since 1979; matters of defence and foreign policy remain under the jurisdiction of Denmark. Most Greenlanders have historically called for the territory’s independence, however opinion polls indicate a majority of opinions are against a US takeover of the island.

One of the alleged reasons why the US is interested in Greenland is its large untapped mineral deposits. Greenland has significant on-land mineral resources, with several mines already open and extracting minerals. Private companies are usually the ones operating the mines and would not necessitate, by themselves, a comprehensive US military takeover of the territory to acquire the resources. Around 25 of the 34 minerals deemed “critical raw materials” by the European Commission were reported in Greenland.

The territory also holds over 35 million metric tons of rare earth oxides, the second-largest reserve after China. The US is, for now, entirely reliant on imports for 12 critical minerals. This is part of the reasoning why Greenland is important to the US economy and national security, since China currently possesses 90% of the world’s critical minerals. As a result, in order for the US to maintain its global leadership, economic competitiveness, and energy resilience, it needs to start looking into ways to not be dependent on foreign adversaries for critical resources.

The Arctic is a strategic area for international actors. Russia uses the region to test nuclear weapons and conduct military exercises, including submarine testing. For China, it conceptualised its own Arctic policy in 2018 and envisioned the Arctic through its “Polar Silk Road” project. China’s interests in the region are mainly economic and are especially banking on the melting ice caps to further its Arctic shipping route. Chinese companies have largely looked into Greenland for mining and fishing purposes, although their rights to develop have been rejected in the past due to security reasons.

What does this mean for NATO?

Frederiksen stated that an attack from the US on Greenland would spell the end of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation). Both the US and Denmark are part of the trans-Atlantic military alliance, an alliance that requires its members to come to each other’s aid in the event of an external attack on one’s territory. The international actors the US defines as adversaries in the region are, according to the Trump administration, shared adversaries across NATO, and therefore increasing US military presence in the region would allow for shared benefits across NATO allies, including the Kingdom of Denmark. Monday, 12 January 2026, Trump reiterated his intention to take control of the island “one way or the other”, joking that the territory has a defence of “two dog sleds”, and underlined the threats Greenland faces from Russia and China. In response, EU defence commissioner Andrius Kubilius warned that a US intervention in Greenland would announce the end of NATO, as well as referencing a mutual assistance clause written in EU treaties.

Nonetheless, the Greenlandic government stated it would never accept US control of its territory. Its prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, underlined that Greenland was a part of Denmark, and by extension, NATO, and therefore its security and defence were also a matter of NATO. However, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has yet to comment on Trump’s goal, highlighting instead the alliance’s general need to reinforce its security in the Arctic.

International Responses

Six European allies have already expressed support for Denmark. In a joint statement, the heads of the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain stated that “Greenland belongs to its people, and only Denmark and Greenland can decide on matters concerning their relations,” echoing Frederiksen’s previous words. To them, it’s not a matter of denying US claims in the region but rather reframing the challenge of Arctic security as a collective NATO matter. A US intervention in Greenland would, according to European allies, violate international law and Denmark’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.

UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said in a previous statement that Denmark and Greenland should be allowed to decide the future of the island, echoing what Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz claimed in the past. French President Emmanuel Macron visited Greenland in December 2025, symbolising solidarity. However, no general, united position has been taken by Europe; attempts have largely remained on safeguarding bilateral relations with the US while trying to diffuse the situation. Public opinion on this lack of a steadfast response against the US has criticised the EU and European countries as “weak”.

How Businesses are Preparing for the Threat to Greenland

In response to Trump’s threat to Greenland and the impact such a threat has on NATO stability and the global order, investors have exponentially piled on investments in gold and European defence stocks. Trump’s military action in Venezuela rendered the possibility of a US takeover of Greenland all the more tangible. The rise in gold prices reflects the increase in geopolitical risk, as it is seen as a safe bet in a volatile market. Defence stocks are rising along with the belief that Europe and NATO members may ready themselves for a potential conflict with the US. Even if a military conflict were not to happen, a steady increase of securitisation and militarisation in Greenland as part of NATO’s Arctic Strategy is likely. As expected, the German tank maker Rheinmetall and Sweden’s Saab amassed a significant amount of investments since Trump’s rhetoric on Greenland renewed. It is difficult to predict the result of the US escalation with Greenland.

In the case of a more economic integration of Greenland with the US, a US-Danish agreement could look similar to the agreement they currently have: a resource-for-security arrangement. In this case, Danish and European public and private capital would jointly develop rare earths extraction and allow for an increased US military presence in Greenland. Such a deal would likely include revenue-sharing agreements. US action is also projected to occur sooner rather than later, as the US midterms are set for November 2026 and could push Trump to take a clear stance on his project for Greenland. Russian and Chinese companies that were looking to operate and invest in Greenland are likely going to need to revise their plans should the US impose economic or military sanctions and retaliation.

The majority of EU and NATO countries call for a greater, collective NATO presence in Greenland, partially as a non-escalatory solution to Trump’s view on Russian and Chinese vessels patrolling the area. Transatlantic defence and security deals are likely to emerge from such plans, where defence manufacturers, advanced monitoring, and satellite technologies could be solicited.

One of the main reasons why Greenland is so attractive to the US and US private companies is how essential its resources can be to the US’s green energy transition. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the critical minerals that can be found in Greenland are significant to green energies as they can be used to manufacture green technologies like wind turbines and electric vehicles. In this sense, US companies could reduce their reliance on Chinese critical minerals to fulfil green transition goals.

Lithium, nickel, cobalt, manganese and graphite are resources essential for battery performance, and additional rare earth resources can be used to make the magnets found in wind turbines and electric vehicle motors. The rare earth sector is a booming world market thanks to the green energy demands, making Greenland a promising source of minerals. Substantial investments could be brought to the nation, for the economic and sustainable development of local populations, allowing the secure supply of raw materials, which are also vital for defence purposes. These materials are used for defence-industrial and technological readiness.

In a worst-case scenario, the repercussions would be disastrous for transatlantic relations and the global economy. In the event of a US aggression on its longstanding ally, NATO would be paralysed, and economic sanctions would likely be levied across the board through tariffs. Weapons restrictions would also likely be affected, and intelligence-sharing concerning Russia’s war in Ukraine could be halted, posing disastrous consequences on European stability and security.