The Gamble for Greenland
Arctic Security Under a Second Trump Administration
Photo via Canva, by SarahNic on Pixabay
Donald Trump’s inauguration as 47th President raises questions about whether his recent rhetoric surrounding Canada, Panama, and Greenland will culminate in actual US economic or military policy.
Greenland, in particular, has garnered recent attention due to its new, strategic importance as climate change opens up new sea routes and reveals previously inaccessible critical minerals. Between the indigenous Inuit population in Greenland, the NATO member of Denmark, and the DC circle, Trump sparked a debate over the future of Greenland and the Arctic region at large. While many have condemned Trump’s desire for US acquisition of Greenland, it’s equally important to hear from Greenlanders what they want their future to hold and to understand the complicated struggle between longing for independence and requiring security and assistance from more prominent nations.
Once a Danish colony, in 1953, Greenland became a self-governing Danish territory, with ⅓ of the GDP and over half of the state budget of about $500 million yearly are still supplied by Denmark. With 90% of Greenland’s population indigenous, many harbor resentment of its former colonial power and accuse the Danes of racist and harmful programs, including a social experiment to reshape Inuit children’s identities and non-consensual birth control practices to manage Greenland’s population. Similarly, the Naleraq party, the Greenland independence party, blamed Denmark for permitting the US to build the large Pituffik Space Base on Greenland’s soil, a project that forced many villagers out of their homes.
For these reasons, after Trump’s son visited Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, many applauded him over his condemnation of previous Danish practices. Several Greenlanders also embraced Trump’s Truth Social post that claimed “for purposes of national security and freedom… the USA feels that ownership … of Greenland is an absolute necessity,” believing that it sparked a productive national discussion surrounding independence. Many still were interested in the idea of closer links with the US sparking a tourism economy. Still, Greenlandic Prime Minister Múte Egede claimed his opposition to both US and Danish ownership of Greenland, and the Danish Prime Minister decreed that Greenlanders alone could decide their own future. A survey shows that many Greenlanders are in favor of independence, but only if it doesn’t come at the expense of welfare, currently provided by Denmark.
Beyond the debate over ownership of Greenland comes the wider question of security, the supposed motivation behind Trump’s case for US ownership. For Trump, securing Greenland is a way to prove his commitment to national security and broader protection from China and Russia. The Arctic’s recent ability as a mode to harness economic and military strategy also allows Trump to project power in an unprecedented way in the region.
As climate change melts Arctic ice surrounding the island, new shipping routes are exposed, and it has become easier to mine rare earth elements, deemed “critical raw materials.” China, Russia, and the US all vie for access to these sea routes, thus supporting Greenland’s role as a geopolitical pawn in the broader chess game between China, Russia, the US, and, to an extent, Scandinavian countries.
Trump’s claim for Greenland comes at a time when NATO members have been criticized for their unequal defense spending compared to the US. The US already has a stake in Greenland, with the Pituffik Space Base, the US’s northernmost military facility, a critical station to increase domain awareness, operate warning systems, and survey space. Greenland already has 80 years of defense cooperation history, but Trump sees potential for even more. While the Pentagon issued an Arctic Strategy that focuses on improving cooperation with northern allies, increasing training efforts, and investing in communication and intelligence, these resources have yet to be implemented.
Citing the location of Greenland along northern sea routes used by China and Russia for military and economic practices, Trump described the ability to see Chinese and Russian ships from the mainland without binoculars. As China seeks to develop a “Polar Silk Road,” and as Russia’s second strike capability depends upon their access to the GIUK (Greenland, Iceland, UK) Gap, Trump sees ownership, or at least a greater US stake in Greenland a way to intercept economic and military expansion of both nations.
His desire to take over the responsibility of ensuring security in the region insinuates Denmark’s weakness and the Danes’ overall neglectfulness to enhance Arctic Security. It also points to a confrontational attitude towards China during a time when some of his policies, including the recent delay on banning Tiktok, have indicated some weakness against Xi.
Still, there are several dependencies before the reality of Greenland becoming a US territory can even be considered. One is the independence vote Greenlanders must take to separate themselves from Denmark. This vote would likely only be possible if Greenlanders knew they were getting enough, one with equal welfare opportunities such as subsidized housing and a guarantee on security. Secondly, if Greenland voted for independence and began talks with the US, they likely would not permit complete US control. While increased cooperation with the US would benefit their economy and security, Greenlanders are wary of too much foreign interference. There has also been the question of Trump using force to take Greenland. As the territory harbors 60,000 people, and with a strong US military presence already in the area, this wouldn’t be hard—but would invoke a sticky situation if a NATO country invaded a NATO territory, and would essentially destroy international order.
Therefore, the future of Greenland sovereignty and Arctic security doesn’t rely merely on Trump but on a wide range of decisions and strategies. The only thing to do for now is keep a close eye on the Arctic and on Trump.