• Greenland’s geopolitical significance — its location between North America and Europe, rich resources and military value—has long attracted U.S. interest, especially as China and Russia increase their Arctic influence.
• U.S. military access stems from a 1951 NATO-era defense agreement with Denmark, permitting bases like Thule. Past U.S. attempts to purchase Greenland, including Trump’s 2019 bid, were rejected by Denmark and Greenlandic leaders.
• Greenland’s government and residents (85% Inuit) strongly oppose U.S. annexation, viewing it as a sovereignty violation. The island has instead pursued closer ties with China for economic development.
• The 1951 defense pact is tied to NATO membership; a U.S. withdrawal could allow Denmark to revoke access under international law, though legal disputes would likely follow.
• The Arctic is emerging as a Cold War-style battleground, with Russia and China expanding influence. The U.S. risks alienating allies like Denmark by treating Greenland as a transactional asset rather than respecting sovereignty.

President Donald Trump’s repeated assertions of intent to acquire Greenland — a Danish territory — have reignited geopolitical tensions, despite consistent rejections from Danish and Greenlandic leaders. Greenland, the world’s largest island, has been a de facto protectorate of Denmark since the 18th century and gained partial autonomy in 1979. Its strategic location between North America and Europe, rich mineral deposits and military significance have long drawn U.S. interest. However, recent diplomatic maneuvers and legal ambiguities have fueled speculation about the future of U.S. access to the Arctic region. As Trump’s rhetoric clashes with Greenland’s firm stance against annexation and China seeks closer ties, the debate underscores the fragile balance of international collaboration and sovereignty claims.

Historical ties and legal foundations: A century of military agreements

The foundation of U.S.-Greenland relations dates to World War II, when the U.S. secured defense rights in 1941 to counter Nazi influence. This agreement, formalized in the 1951 U.S.-Denmark Defense Agreement tied to NATO, granted the U.S. military access to bases like Thule. The pact affirmed Danish sovereignty — a principle reiterated in 2004’s Igaliku agreement, which limited U.S. presence to Thule Air Base and introduced Greenlandic government consultations. Despite repeated U.S. attempts to purchase Greenland since 1867 — most recently in 2019 — Denmark has consistently rejected such offers, reaffirming its ownership. “The idea of selling Greenland is absurd,” stated former Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, reflecting the consensus.

Trump’s push and Greenland’s rejection: Property mindset vs. sovereignty

Trump’s fixation on Greenland rooted in his real estate-driven worldview — prioritizing size and domination — has irritated both Denmark and the Greenlandic government. “Greenland is not for sale. Period,” said Nuuk Mayor Ane Hansen in April 2025, echoing decades of opposition. The administration’s 2019 proposal, dismissed as “a waste of time,” followed Trump’s habit of conflating nations with commodities. Meanwhile, Greenland has leaned toward Beijing, signaling closer economic and political collaboration with China, citing Beijing’s infrastructure investments and funding for resource exploration. This shift underscores Greenland’s growing autonomy and skepticism of U.S. overtures, even as 85% of its residents identify culturally as Inuit.

NATO withdrawal and legal uncertainty: A path to expulsion?

A critical legal angle emerges if the U.S. withdraws from NATO, as Trump has threatened. The 1951 agreement links U.S. access to Greenland to NATO membership. While the pact lacks explicit exit clauses, the doctrine of rebus sic stantibus (changed circumstances) under international law allows treaties to be voided if foundational conditions shift. Scholars argue Denmark could claim termination rights if U.S. departure undermines NATO’s collective defense mission. The precedent of the 2001 U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty — citing changed Cold War dynamics — took years of litigation. For Greenland, expulsion of U.S. forces would require Denmark and self-governance leaders to navigate a legal minefield, though public sentiment overwhelmingly opposes foreign takeover.

A tangled path forward

The U.S.-Greenland saga intertwines history, law and geopolitics, with implications far beyond territorial disputes. Greenland’s strategic value—its minerals, Arctic airspace and potential as a Chinese alliance partner—has turned the island into a microcosm of global power struggles. While legal frameworks favor Danish sovereignty, political will remains uncertain. For now, the North Atlantic Treaty’s durability, Greenland’s economic aspirations and Trump’s transactional approach leave the region’s future in limbo—an example of how fragile international comity can grow from the tangled roots of history. As former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell observed in 2020, “Greenland isn’t a property listing. It’s a nation.” Yet, until alliances realign, the island’s fate remains a contested question.

As Russia and China court Greenland with infrastructure projects, the White House’s “go it alone” mentality sows dangerous divisions. “Denmark’s loyalty to NATO and shared security is unshaken—but alliances require reciprocity,” warned Hartmann. As the North Pole teeters toward becoming a chessboard of the new Cold War, one question lingers: Can the U.S. afford to treat its oldest allies like tenants? Or must it learn that geopolitical chess demands partners, not prisoners of war?

Sources include:

TheNationalPulse.com

EJILtalk.org

LakeviewJournal.com