The American president did not wait until the beginning of his second term as head of the United States to raise the purchase proposal of the immense Danish island of Greenland, in the Arctic. This proposal is not new in the history of US-Danish relations. He announced it during his election campaign and revived this interest after declaring, on December 22, 2024, on his account on the Truth Social network: “For reasons of national security and freedom throughout the world, the United States of America believes that ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.” According to the American president, such a move wouldn’t hurt a worm.
Prior to his son’s trip to Greenland on January 7, Donald Trump wrote again on Truth Social that “Greenland is an incredible place, and the people will benefit enormously if and when it becomes part of our nation,” and that is “a deal that must happen.”
At a press conference on January 7, 2025, the president-elect said that he could not rule out using military or economic coercion to seize Greenland or the Panama Canal.
The reactions of the Danish politicians and government to this fixation of the American president were as critical as harsh. “Greenland has made it clear that it is not for sale,” said Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen on January 7, 2025. She pointed out that the Greenlandic Prime Minister, Múte Egede, and “has been very, very clear… that there is broad support among the people of Greenland that Greenland is not for sale and will not be for sale in the future.”
In fact, the US President’s proposal simply refers to a process already used in US history for the purchase of certain territories of large states, such as Louisiana (from France in 1803 for $15,000,000), Florida (from Spain in 1819 for $5,000,000), and New Mexico (from Mexico in 1848 for $15,000,000).
Personal or Strategic Interest?
This is not the first time that President Trump has tried to purchase Greenland. He had made the same proposal in 2019, during his first term, which prompted a strong reaction from Prime Minister Frederiksen herself, who called Trump’s attempt “absurd.”
For her, taking a diplomatic tone, “it was up to the Greenlanders to decide their own future.” She stressed that “Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and any discussion about its future should involve Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands, rather than a unilateral offer from the United States.”
“I see a strong desire among many Greenlanders to move toward independence,” she said at the time, adding, “That is legitimate, and that is why I think it is important that the future of Greenland is shaped in Nuuk [the Greenlandic capital].”
As a matter of fact, under a 2009 agreement with Denmark, Greenland can only declare independence after a successful referendum—which Prime Minister Múte Burrup Egede seems to have hinted at in his 2025 New Year’s speech—that could be held at the same time as the island’s next parliamentary elections in April this year. This shows that the issue of independence is on the table and remains open. However, the precedent of the Faroe Islands casts doubts on whether such an operation will come to fruition.
However, the media coverage of Trump’s current proposal remains largely focused on discussions around his personality and what may be called the “Trumpism,” as a new political phenomenon that could shake up American politics and the world order.
However, Trump’s interest, appearing as mercantile, lies in the strategic importance of Greenland, which already serves as an American eye on everything that happens in the North Sea and the Arctic region, including the Northern Sea Route that Russia is controlling
By the same token, Greenland has many strategic natural resources, not only hydrocarbons but also rare earths and uranium. Notably, it has long been home to the large U.S. military base ’’Thule” and other facilities. More broadly, the United States has a particular interest in securing access to these resources, including rare earth minerals and oil, especially as melting ice opens up new reserves.
While Greenland’s sovereignty makes it difficult for the United States to access these resources, the geostrategic importance of the Arctic could provide incentives for U.S. businesses and the administration to engage in cooperative efforts with Greenland to exploit such resources. The island has yet to fully exploit its energy reserves, while growing global demand for minerals, used in high-tech industries and renewable energy, creates future economic opportunities.
To better understand the situation, we should go back in time for a bit of history that would help understand the ins and outs of American strategic gluttony.
A Flashback History to put the Record Straight
The history of foreign explorers in this territory began with the arrival of the Norwegian Vikings in the year 985 AD, when the Norwegian explorer called “Erik the Red” established a colony on the southwest coast of the island, naming it “Greenland” to attract settlers despite its icy conditions. His son, Leif Erikson, is credited with exploring parts of North America, probably reaching what is now Newfoundland in Canada.
The Norse settlements in Greenland lasted for several centuries, with a peak of about 3,000 people, who lived mainly from agriculture, hunting, fishing, and trade. However, around the 1400s, these settlements began to decline, likely due to climate change (the Little Ice Age), isolation, and possible conflict with the indigenous population, the “Inuit.”.
At the time, Denmark and Norway had a very long history together: they were both part of the Kalmar Union with Sweden (a form of confederation between kings) between 1397 and 1523, and Norway remained in a union with Denmark between 1524 and 1814.
In the early 18th century, Denmark and Norway, as a united kingdom, reasserted their control over Greenland with the arrival of Danish missionaries in 1721. They introduced Christianity to the “Inuit,” who had their own traditional beliefs. But Denmark eventually took full control of Greenland. Greenland remained largely isolated as a Danish territory for much of the 19th century, but Denmark exploited the island’s natural resources, including fish and seal fur.
After defeat in the Napoleonic Wars in 1814, the Danish king was forced to cede Norway to Sweden, ending the kingdom’s role as a medium-sized European power. The year 1814 also marked the end of its expansive—if modest—colonialism. Denmark-Norway had acquired its colonies during the 17th and 18th centuries for economic reasons.
During the 19th century, Denmark parted ways with its colonial territories, which were now seen as an economic burden on a greatly reduced state. The Indian colonies were sold in 1845 and the African forts in 1850, both to Britain. From the 1860s onwards, buyers were sought for the Caribbean islands. Eventually, St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix were sold to the United States in 1917—following a referendum in Denmark (but not on the islands)—and thus became the US Virgin Islands.
Greenland was the exception. The reasons for the renewal of relations with Denmark from 1721 onwards cannot be reduced to economic reasons, and throughout the 19th century, Denmark consolidated its dominance and even established a presence on the sparsely populated east coast.
As late as 1933, Denmark had to fend off a Norwegian claim to parts of eastern Greenland at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. After World War II, Denmark was forced to redefine its relationship with Greenland, as the United Nations tended to define it as a “non-self-governing territory.”
This resulted in the incorporation of Greenland as a Danish county (region) in 1953, meaning that Greenland was entitled to elect two members of the Danish Parliament. This decision was then endorsed by the United Nations. It gained its new status in 1979, which gave it greater autonomy, particularly in terms of control over local affairs.
Read also: President Trump: A Golden Era—In Hyperdrive
The 20th century was marked by gradual changes, from colonial-style governance by Denmark to increasing self-determination and autonomy for Greenland, but it was also shaped by geopolitical, economic, and cultural forces that influenced both Greenland and Denmark.
While the self-governing territory’s defense and foreign policy matters are largely coordinated with Denmark, the United States maintains close relations with Denmark, particularly within NATO, which allows the U.S. military access to bases in Greenland. This relationship already provides the United States with the ability to deploy military assets in Greenland without requiring direct sovereignty over the island.
World War II also marked a major turning point in Danish-Greenlandic relations, as the global conflict brought about both a change in governance and an increase in Greenland’s strategic importance. It is notable that in 1940, during World War II, the German occupation of Denmark cut Greenland off from Danish control and supply, leaving Greenland in something of a political vacuum.
The Danish government was in exile in London, and Greenland, without direct Danish control, began to function more independently. This period marked the first time that the island became largely autonomous, although Denmark did not formally relinquish control.
Greenland became an important strategic territory for both the Allies and Nazi Germany, as it was used in the Battle of the Atlantic. Thus, the Danish minister representing his country in the United States, Henrik Kauffmann—who had refused to recognize the German occupation of Denmark—signed a treaty with the United States on April 9, 1941, granting permission to establish stations in Greenland, and this without the knowledge of the Danish government. As a result, the Danish government accused him of high treason and dismissed him, but none of this came to anything.
As a result, a series of 14 American bases were built on the west and east coasts of Greenland to ferry aircraft to Europe and to provide bases for American, Canadian, and British forces to attack German submarines. As a result, and because it was difficult for the Danish government to govern the island during the war, Greenland eventually enjoyed a status of near independence. Its vital supplies were guaranteed by the United States.
After World War II, relations between Greenland and Denmark began to evolve from colonial control to a more integrated partnership. However, significant problems of dependency, economic disparity, and local control remained. By 1951, during the Cold War, Greenland had become strategically important to both the United States and Denmark.
It became evident during the Cold War that the United States was increasingly involved in Arctic cooperation with Greenland and Denmark, particularly as climate change altered the region and its vast lands under the ice. The US Army and other entities continued collaboration with Greenlandic authorities in the fields of search and rescue, environmental monitoring, and security in the Arctic.
Greenland, Old-New Race for Strategic Dominance
However, interest in this Arctic region is not limited to the Americans alone, as in recent years there has been a sustained race for the conquest of its natural resources and for strategic positioning at the North Pole on the part of Russia and other European countries, particularly Scandinavians, which have access to it.
Greenland is also a strategic element of NATO’s defense infrastructure, particularly with regard to the defense of the North Atlantic. Greenland’s geographical location provided the Alliance with a vital bridge between North America and Europe, crucial for surveillance, early warning systems, and military operations, particularly vis-à-vis the USSR and later Russia.
Greenland was and still is an ideal location, controlling parts of the passageway between the Soviet Union/Russia’s Arctic Ocean ports and the Atlantic Ocean, as well as being an ideal base to observe any use of intercontinental ballistic missiles, generally assumed to be able to pass over the Atlantic Ocean.
Therefore, a first proposal for the United States to purchase Greenland was submitted to Denmark in 1946 for the sum of $100,000,000, but Denmark rejected it. In 1951, the 1941 treaty was replaced by a new one, and the “Thule” air base became permanent. In 1953, some indigenous families were forced by Danish authorities to leave their homes and make way for the expansion of the base, which became a source of friction between the Danish government and the Greenlandic people.
In this sense, when a B-52 plane crashed at the air base on January 21, 1968, four hydrogen bombs contaminated the area with radioactive debris. Although most of the contaminated ice was cleaned up, one of the bombs was not found and remained missing until 2022. A scandal erupted in Denmark in 1995, dubbed the “Thulegate,” which revealed that nuclear weapons were regularly present in Greenland’s airspace in the years leading up to the accident and that Denmark had tacitly given the green light to this activity despite its official “nuclear-free” policy.
The United States has since upgraded its ballistic missile early warning system with phased array radars, but opponents of their presence say the system poses a threat to the local population, as they would be targeted in the event of a nuclear war.
Denmark’s No-deal Unprecedented Reaction
In the 21st century, with growing interest in the Arctic, climate change opening up shipping lanes in the region, and increasing geopolitical competition, the strategic importance of the Thule base has resurfaced. The United States has considered upgrading its capabilities to meet threats from Russia and China. This includes advanced radar systems, space surveillance, and missile defense systems to protect against hypersonic weapons or ballistic missile threats from potential adversaries.
Thus, as part of the U.S. military’s Arctic strategy, this base could serve as a staging point for rapid reaction forces and support for military operations in the Arctic, which is increasingly seen as an extremely volatile region in the event of future conflicts.
Similarly, as China seeks to increase its presence in the Arctic, particularly in relation to mining and shipping routes, the United States has not been slow to express concerns about Chinese influence and appetite for Greenland. The United States has been paying close attention to combating Chinese investment in Greenland’s natural resources, viewing such investments as a potential geopolitical threat if China were to gain too much influence in the region.
Greenland is also increasingly seen as a key player in global efforts to combat climate change. The melting of the island ice sheet is affecting sea levels worldwide and is a significant environmental challenge.
The United States has a vested interest in monitoring climate conditions in Greenland, particularly as the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the planet. Research teams have long worked alongside Greenlandic scientists to track environmental changes and their implications for U.S. and global security.
It is sounds clear that Greenland’s geostrategic importance to the United States is multifaceted, from its critical role in the defense of North America to its growing importance in the geopolitics of the Arctic and natural resources.
Although Greenland is not controlled by the United States, its status as an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark already ensures that the United States can continue to use military facilities like the “Thule” Air Base while maintaining a strong strategic partnership with both Denmark and Greenland.
As the Arctic region becomes more accessible due to climate change, Greenland’s resources, military positioning, and climate monitoring capabilities will only become more important to the United States.
In this sense, Thule Air Base represents a strategic pole in the Arctic region, as the northernmost military base, located in northern Greenland, approximately 1,207 km from the North Pole. Its location made it an ideal site for early warning systems and radar stations to track intruding enemy bombers or missiles heading toward North America, operating as part of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) network.
Today, Thule remains a key military installation for ballistic missile early warning systems, which track missile launches over the Arctic and provide critical data to the United States. It is part of the United States’ global missile defense network, which works in tandem with other facilities in Alaska and the continental United States to detect and intercept incoming threats.
Risky Options for Breaking the Stalemate
The base is also home to the PAVE PAWS radar, which is a state-of-the-art system that tracks targets in space, such as satellites or potentially hostile projectiles. This gives the United States early warning of threats from missile launches, satellite collisions, or debris in Earth orbit.
In addition, “Thule” is used by the United States Air Force (USAF) and Navy for strategic airlift operations in the Arctic and the Northern Hemisphere: transporting personnel, equipment, and supplies for military exercises or operations in the Arctic or Northern Europe.
Here again, the Danish government and political class reacted strongly to Donald Trump’s remarks. While in general the rejection is unequivocal, several officials have found nothing better than to consider the proposal to buy Greenland as a joke in bad taste.
However, a large part of public opinion remains incredulous and even doubtful. People can’t hide their strong fear about what the president of the world’s leading power could do next and how he could perceive Denmark’s new rejection.
Following a telephone conversation with Donald Trump on January 15, 2025, a few days before his inauguration, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said that “she sees no reason why Trump would not be serious about his project.”
Speaking to the Financial Times, officials said that “Trump, then still president-elect, spoke with Frederiksen for 45 minutes, during which he was described as aggressive and confrontational over Frederiksen’s refusal to sell Greenland to the United States.”
Suffice it to say that the current and future turbulent international environment and the fragility of the European Union and its states in the face of American power do not leave politicians and the population in Denmark feeling secure with respect to Denmark’s relationship with the United States.
Hence, no one would pretend to soundly read President Trump’s mind, waiting to assess what would be his decisions with respect to current international issues and towards Europe and other superpowers.
It goes without saying that membership in the Atlantic Alliance (NATO) does not guarantee protection from threats or from being subject to retaliation from the United States, whether for commercial or other reasons. Hence the complexity of the unsustainable situation of Denmark (less than 6 million inhabitants in 2024) in its face-to-face with hypothetically the most powerful man in the world.
It is worth reminding that while Greenland obtained even more autonomy, thanks to the Self-Government Act, in 2009, granting it control over most domestic issues, Denmark manages foreign policy, defense, and finance.
However, the island territory is facing new challenges, including climate change, which is radically altering its ecosystem. The potential for exploiting Greenland’s natural resources (such as minerals, oil, and gas) has also attracted global attention and appetite.
On the domestic chessboard, there is an ongoing debate over whether Greenland should seek full independence from Denmark. Although there is a strong sense of identity among Greenlanders, the territory remains heavily dependent on Denmark for financial and economic support.
The political spectrum in Greenland reflects, though, a range of positions on the complex path to independence, from the gradualist stance advocating a cautious approach to independence to the more pro-independence position that sees full separation as a desirable goal.
The general trend is that while the aspiration for full independence is strong, economic concerns and the need for stability and development mean that full independence carries huge risks. Many Greenlanders want to ensure that any move towards independence is both politically and economically viable before severing ties with Denmark.
The specter of a US “hold-up” is forcing Greenlanders to think twice, or risk moving from a status that allows them to fully enjoy their autonomy to one that is totally overwhelmed by foreign strategic appetites that would probably hurt them.
It is in this complex political context that Donald Trump’s proposal represents a different option for the pro-independence movement, which only makes the situation for politicians in both Denmark and Greenland even more difficult and unsustainable.
This episode has highlighted the complexity of international relations, particularly in terms of territorial sovereignty, and has demonstrated how an offhand comment on social media can disrupt already dichotomous perceptions of post-Covid geopolitics.
