The Misguided Pursuit of Greenland: Trump's Expansionism and Its Risks

The security risks highlighted by President Trump to justify the potential annexation of Greenland are largely mistaken and exaggerated. A prime example is the recent activity off the coast of Alaska—the deployment of five Chinese icebreakers—which underscores that the real threats lie closer to home for the United States, rather than in Greenland. Despite the apparent risks posed by increased Sino-Russian cooperation in the Arctic and the hybrid threats from Russia, the rationale for United States' annexation of Greenland lacks credibility. The United States already has a significant presence in Greenland with the Pituffik military base—established under a 1951 agreement with Denmark. This military presence indicates that the U.S. is not without its foothold in the region, and Denmark's commitment to defend Greenland has been strong, with funding plans reaching close to $6 billion by January 2025. In a bizarre twist, the United States seems to have become the more significant threat to Greenland itself. President Trump’s push for annexation appears to stem from a desire to secure a territorial trophy, adding to his legacy through a form of uninhibited expansionism. This drive is particularly opportunistic given Greenland's vast reserves of rare earth elements—a resource heavily monopolized by China in terms of extraction and refining. Discussions around international cooperation, particularly through NATO, highlighted in a joint declaration by seven European heads of state on January 6, emphasize that a credible response to these dynamics requires more than minimal proposals. The trustworthiness of a NATO response is not as straightforward as it once was. The United States, needing NATO for the operation of its bases in Europe, has made moves that may alienate its allies. For instance, the June 17, 2025 decision to transfer command of Greenland from EUCOM (European Command) to NORTHCOM (Northern Command) signals a significant shift—a sidelining of European interests. This shift raises the question of whether the prospect of annexing Greenland was intended as a strategy to sow division within the European Union. While it may not have been designed purely to fracture the EU, the implications of U.S. actions suggest that this could indeed be one of the consequences. This desire to weaken the EU is further reflected in the U.S. national security strategy published in November 2025, as well as in Vice President JD Vance’s speech in February 2025 at the Munich conference. In summary, Trump's proposal to annex Greenland, driven by exaggerated security concerns, reflects a larger agenda characterized by opportunism and a disregard for longstanding international agreements. The risks surrounding Greenland are not primarily from external threats but may be generated by the United States’ own strategies in the region. The current geopolitical landscape warrants a careful and collaborative approach rather than one motivated by personal legacy or territorial ambition. Related Sources: • Source 1 • Source 2 • Source 3