President Donald Trump has repeatedly made claims about why the U.S. should control Greenland, but a detailed review by Danish media reveals that many of his arguments are misleading or lack factual basis. While Greenland does hold strategic importance for U.S. security, experts say American control of the island is not necessary to maintain that security, and Trump’s assertions about threats from China and Russia appear exaggerated.
U.S. National Security Claims Under Scrutiny
Trump has consistently argued that the United States needs Greenland for national security purposes. While this claim contains some truth, it doesn’t tell the whole story.
Greenland’s strategic location between Europe and North America does make the island critical for American defense against missile threats. However, the U.S. already operates Pituffik Space Base in northern Greenland, where radar systems can warn of incoming ballistic missiles.
According to Jon Rahbek-Clemmensen, a lecturer and academic director at the Center for Arctic Security Studies at the Danish Defense Academy, the United States has broad authority to expand its military presence if desired. The 1951 defense agreement between Denmark and the U.S. allows American military forces to move freely on land, at sea, and in the air, as long as it happens without restricting the Kingdom of Denmark’s sovereignty.
If the U.S. wants to open new bases or make other significant changes, Americans must consult and inform Greenland and Denmark, according to the agreement. Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen stated last week that Denmark would accept any request from the Americans to increase their presence in Greenland. Interestingly, he also noted that Denmark hasn’t received a single request from the U.S. in the last 20 years.
The China and Russia Threat Narrative
Trump has claimed multiple times that China and Russia will take Greenland if the United States doesn’t act first. He has even stated that Chinese and Russian ships are everywhere around Greenland.
Nothing in current intelligence assessments supports these claims. According to the latest threat evaluations from the U.S. intelligence community and Denmark’s Defense Intelligence Service, both China and Russia have ambitions to increase their military presence in the Arctic Ocean, where melting ice creates opportunities for expanded maritime transport and energy exploitation.
Greenland is mentioned in connection with both countries in these assessments. But neither intelligence service identifies any concrete military security threat against Greenland.
What Are Their Actual Interests?
China has long-term economic interests in Greenland through investments and attempts to access the island’s natural resources, according to intelligence services. From the Russian side, the interest primarily concerns strategically important fleet routes between the Arctic and the Atlantic, and the fact that Greenland houses the American military base.
Even so, Denmark’s Defense Intelligence Service assesses that Russia likely sees Greenland and the Faroe Islands in a North American context, meaning the islands would not necessarily be involved in a European conflict.
Even if a concrete threat against Greenland existed, American ownership would make no difference, Rahbek-Clemmensen believes. The U.S. can deter China and Russia without controlling Greenland, he says. The two things are not connected.
NATO Warning Claims Lack Evidence
Trump has recently claimed that NATO has been urging Denmark for years to handle the Russian threat against Greenland. There are no publicly available sources indicating that NATO has warned Denmark about a Russian threat to Greenland over the past 20 years.
This sounds like an argument invented for the occasion, says Rasmus Brun Pedersen, a lecturer at the Department of Political Science at Aarhus University.
On the contrary, NATO has only begun taking interest in the Arctic region in recent years. Until 2022, the Arctic was not mentioned at all in NATO’s strategic concept, considered a core document for the alliance’s overall strategy.
NATO’s press office did not directly answer questions about whether the alliance has warned Denmark. However, they stated that allied countries formally agreed in 2014 on the need to protect against threats including the Russian presence in the Arctic.
Denmark’s Defense Efforts Questioned
Trump has accused Denmark multiple times of not doing enough to ensure security in and around Greenland. This assessment depends on perspective, and Trump may not be entirely wrong, according to both Pedersen and Rahbek-Clemmensen.
Although there is no immediate threat to Greenland, Denmark has been slow in Arctic military buildup, just like the U.S. and other NATO countries. Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen has acknowledged that Denmark has not been good enough at providing better conditions for the entire realm.
Nevertheless, defense capabilities in and around Greenland have been strengthened in the past year. Denmark has allocated 42 billion kroner to defense in the Arctic and North Atlantic, including new Arctic ships, patrol aircraft, radars, and drones. Including ground-based air defense systems and 16 new F-35 fighter jets, the total reaches 88 billion kroner.
Meanwhile, the U.S. has closed numerous military installations since the Cold War ended and today maintains only one base in Greenland.
The Golden Dome Defense System Argument
Trump plans to establish a large-scale defense system called the Golden Dome, inspired by Israel’s Iron Dome. The system would defend the U.S. against a wide range of weapons, including drones, ballistic missiles, and cruise missiles.
According to Trump, control over Greenland is vital for this system to reach its full potential. But this argument also lacks solid foundation, Rahbek-Clemmensen says.
With the 1951 defense agreement, Americans can in principle build the facilities necessary to make Golden Dome a reality. If it involves doing something at Pituffik Space Base or establishing new military installations, they could sit down with Greenland and Denmark and make it happen, he explains.
Questioning Denmark’s Rights to Greenland
The first humans arrived in northern Greenland approximately 4,500 years ago. The Norwegian-born Viking Erik the Red named the island Greenland in 985, and in 1721, missionary Hans Egede arrived to convert the population, beginning actual colonization.
After the Napoleonic Wars in 1814, Denmark had to cede Norway, while Greenland was formally recognized as a Danish colony. In 1916, the United States declared once and for all that Greenland belongs to Denmark in connection with the sale of the Danish West Indies. Americans signed an agreement stating they would not oppose this circumstance.
That Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark is internationally recognized, which also rests on UN acceptance of Greenland’s status in 1954. Since the Self-Government Act in 2009, the Greenlandic people have had the right to self-determination and can decide whether to remain part of the realm or have their own independent state.
Nothing suggests that Greenlanders want to become part of the United States. A poll from last year showed that 85 percent of Greenlanders do not want to leave the realm to become part of the U.S. Greenland’s government leader Jens-Frederik Nielsen has made it clear that Greenland chooses Denmark over the United States.
Ownership Versus Cooperation
In a striking interview with The New York Times earlier in January, Trump stated that he also has a psychological urge to own Greenland. Actual ownership brings things and elements that cannot be achieved by merely signing a document, according to Trump.
Rahbek-Clemmensen acknowledges that ownership might make it easier for the U.S. to take interest in Greenland and make it possible to build up military presence without first coordinating with Denmark and Greenland. But it would also create a crisis in NATO that is out of proportion with what could be achieved for the U.S., he says.
Sources and References
The Danish Dream: Why Was Greenland Granted Autonomy From Denmark
TV2: Her er Trumps argumenter for at få fingrene i Grønland – og hvor de fejlslutter
