Every Clime, Class and Colour

For over a century the United States has been interested in acquiring Greenland. Usually this was under the idea that it would be purchased from Denmark, to which Greenland is a part. The issue was revived during Trumps first term but amounted to nothing. Greenlanders have zero interest in becoming a part of the United States. And Denmark also. Since Trump was elected for the second time in 2024, he has moved from the idea of purchasing Greenland to simply annexing it. Now with the capture of Maduro this remote possibility is looking more likely. He has once again renewed his threats towards the icy island, much to the frustration of Europe.

Why Greenland?

But why Greenland? With a population of 56,000 people, it seems an unlikely target for the United States. The reasons are twofold. First, mineral wealth. According to the United States government, there are 50 minerals considered critical for their economy and armed forces. Most are currently supplied by China. Greenland has known reserves of 43 out of the 50 minerals. This makes Greenland lucrative for the United States government; in a way no other place is. Despite the wealth, Greenland struggles to exploit their resources due to a lack of labour. Just 0.2% of Greenlanders are unemployed. There are worries that bringing in foreign labourers would shift the demographics in a way that makes the population uncomfortable. Just one hypothetical mine would need a workforce of 300. This alone would increase the population by 0.5%. Even applying to set up a new mine is slow. The licensing department that approves new mining ventures and other economic projects has just 16 people. Investors end up waiting years just for their application to be reviewed. Trump probably thinks the only way to get the resources he wants is to simply take over the country. He is hardly known for his patience.

Trump also wants to annex a sovereign country because of Greenland’s strategic location. According to the Arctic Institute:
“The advent of climate change has brought about a number of different changes in the Arctic, including increased accessibility to Arctic ports as well as the opening of new Arctic shipping lanes. With new trans-Arctic routes, including the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and the Northwest Passage (NWP), as well as newly built and refurbished ports from Russia, political and military interests are reevaluating the region as one of geopolitical competition.”

Due to Greenland’s position in the Arctic circles, it has becoming more geopolitically important in an increasingly competitive region. Its worth pointing out however that Greenland already holds several US bases and it a part of NATO. So, Trump really doesn’t need to annex it to benefit from its location. It doesn’t really make much sense. Perhaps he just believes everything in the Western Hemisphere should belong to the United States. The Donroe Doctrine.

What Would Happen?

So, what would happen if Trump did annex Greenland? How exactly the annexation would be done is unclear. Regime change and replacing their government with a puppet US one is possible. I don’t think Greenland would be integrated into the United States. Annexation would immediately trigger a crisis inside NATO. The largest member of the alliance would be invading another. The country that created and protected the alliance for 80 years would overnight become a threat. Worst case scenario, NATO would effectively die. What would this mean for Europe? It is unlikely the rest of NATO would militarily oppose the United States. They wouldn’t recognise the annexation and would show support for Denmark’s territorial integrity. But for the most part, there’s not much they can do. A trade war between the US and EU is possible. Sanctions seem incredibly unlikely.

Europe would be forced to make some sort of replacement for NATO through the EU. Even an EU army wouldn’t be far fetched in such a scenario, though it would take years to materialise. With the death of NATO, a security vacuum would have to be filled, especially to deter Russia. Moscow would also make a move if Trump did indeed take Greenland. It is possible Putin would annex Svalbard in the Arctic, a group of Norwegian islands, for similar geopolitical reasons. It has a population of only 3,000, meaning Europe may not go to war over it. A less likely possibility is Russia moves into continental Europe with NATO gone. But they are bogged down in Ukraine and may not have the ability to wage a second war. And if Russia moved westward on the continent, say in the Baltics, a war would certainly happen.

Conclusion

As you can probably tell from these hypotheticals, a US invasion would be catastrophic for Europe. It would end an 80-year relationship and usher in a new era of US – European relations. One filled with fear, uncertainty and war.
It is worth noting something that is often lost in discussions around Greenland, and that is the self determination of its people. Greenland was colonised by Denmark centuries ago and its natives underwent a similar treatment that natives received in Canada and the United States. While no longer a colony (it is an autonomous region of the Kingdom) Greenland has an active independence movement that seeks to break with Denmark. The recent threats from the United States have damaged this movement, making it less likely that it succeeds. Trump has effectively pushed them closer to Denmark. At the end of the day, it is the people of Greenland that should choose the Islands future. Not Trump and not Denmark. Their self determination would be the first casualty of a US invasion.

Sources

Bryant, Miranda. 2026. “Trump must give up ‘fantasies about annexation’, says Greenland’s PM.” The Guardian, January 5 (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/05/trump-must-give-up-fantasies-about-annexation-says-greenland-pm). 
Gricius, Gabriella. 2021 “Geopolitical Implications of New Arctic Shipping Lanes.” The Arctic Institute, March 18 (https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/geopolitical-implications-arctic-shipping-lanes/). 
The Economist. 2025. “American threats push Greenland closer to Denmark.” The Economist, May 19 (https://www.economist.com/europe/2025/05/19/american-threats-push-greenland-closer-to-denmark). 
The Economist. 2024. “Greenland faces one of history’s great resource rushes—and curses.” The Economist, October 31 (https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/10/31/greenland-faces-one-of-historys-great-resource-rushes-and-curses).