How trading, not invading, is Trump’s best Greenland strategy

Greenland fever is spiking again in Washington, DC — and the reckless rhetoric is alarming America’s allies.

President Donald Trump and senior aides have repeatedly stated that the United States “needs” Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, for “national security” reasons, at times even refusing to rule out deploying military force to seize it.

Trump is right to highlight Greenland’s strategic importance to America’s security.

The island’s location gives it a vital role in the defense of the North American continent from airborne threats, which is why the Pentagon has maintained a military presence there since World War II.

Trouble is, Greenland’s not for sale, and at least for now most Americans don’t want to take it — nor do Greenlanders want to join the United States.

Even by Trump’s unorthodox standards, the idea of using US military force against territory belonging to a fellow NATO ally would be extraordinary, to say the least.  

However, there’s no need for saber-rattling — the United States can meet all its Arctic security objectives through existing agreements with Greenland and Denmark.

Better yet, Greenland’s government has clearly stated it welcomes a deeper US relationship.

Rather than using needlessly divisive language against a NATO partner, Trump should focus on strengthening an already important partnership.

The first step should be improving transit and economic links between the United States and Greenland.

Today, well under 1% of the territory’s exports go to the United States — and even fewer US exports go to Greenland.

American private-sector investment on the island remains sparse, and while Greenland has sought to improve its shipping links with North American ports for years — including the deep-water port at Portland, Maine — they have yet to materialize.

Air connectivity is also limited. In 2024, a seasonal route from Newark to Nuuk became the first direct flight from the United States to Greenland in almost two decades.

Prior to that, US travelers typically had to fly to Europe and then back across the Atlantic to reach Greenland — an unnecessary obstacle to closer ties.

There’s no need for the United States to own Greenland to tap its abundant natural resources, including rare earth elements critical to modern technologies.

The lack of logistical infrastructure on the island and technological limitations now make profitable extraction difficult — but this presents an opportunity.

Trump can actively encourage American companies to partner with Greenlandic businesses to responsibly develop these resources, bringing them to global markets and benefiting both sides.

For example, Washington could copy its own playbook and make a minerals deal similar to the one recently negotiated with Ukraine.

A joint US-Greenland investment fund tied to future resource revenues would deliver everything America needs on the island: supply security, infrastructure and strategic presence — without questioning Danish or Greenlandic sovereignty.

If security is Trump’s concern, he should help Greenland strengthen its own defensive capabilities, not threaten invasion.

America’s existing treaty arrangements with Denmark and Greenland give the United States broad authority to significantly increase its military presence on the island. All that’s needed is political will in Washington.

Geopolitically, however, the greater challenge for the United States is preserving cohesion with its longstanding transatlantic partners.

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine enters its fourth year, unity among allies is essential — especially as Trump seeks a diplomatic settlement.

Threatening to use force against a NATO ally undermines that unity and alarms America’s closest friends, as Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni warned Friday.

Europe remains vital to US prosperity and security.

It is America’s largest export market, and 46 out of 50 states export more to Europe than to China — exports that translate directly into American jobs.

Europe is also the largest source of foreign direct investment in the United States, totaling roughly $4 trillion and supporting millions of workers.

Any action that jeopardizes this relationship, like needless squabbling over Greenland, risks serious economic consequences.

And Denmark is a model NATO ally: It deployed thousands of troops to some of the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan, was among the first European countries to fight ISIS, and participated in NATO’s air campaign in Libya.

Danish naval vessels have supported US-led anti-piracy missions off the Horn of Africa, while Denmark’s geography gives it control over access to the strategically vital Baltic Sea.

Denmark is among the biggest contributors of military aid to Ukraine — and in response to Trump’s urging, it has invested billions in Arctic defense.

The United States needs more partners like Denmark, not fewer.

As the debate over Greenland continues in Washington, policymakers should keep the larger strategic picture in mind.

America can achieve its objectives in Greenland without annexation or purchase, simply by taking advantage of the many opportunities to deepen economic and transit ties.

At a time of continued Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, transatlantic unity — not 18th century-style land grabs — should remain America’s focus.

Luke Coffey is a Hudson Institute senior fellow.