Donald Trump has once again asserted that the United States should “own” Greenland, renewing a proposition that provoked a diplomatic flap when he first raised it in 2019. Speaking on January 20, 2026, he dismissed historical Danish claims with a rhetorical flourish — “just because a ship went there 500 years ago and then left does not give you ownership” — and said he had a “very pleasant” phone call on the subject with a senior NATO figure named in Chinese reporting as Lüte.
The remark revives a debate about sovereignty and strategic geography that has only become more salient as the Arctic warms. Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, with its own government in Nuuk and a 2009 self-rule arrangement that makes any transfer of sovereignty legally and politically complex. Any U.S. attempt to acquire Greenland would face not only Danish and Greenlandic opposition but also entrenched international norms against buying territory in the modern era.
Greenland’s value to great powers is primarily strategic rather than sentimental. Its location controls approaches between North America and Europe, and it hosts long-standing U.S. military infrastructure such as the Thule Air Base. Melting ice is opening new shipping lanes and exposing mineral deposits — including rare earths and other resources that have attracted outside interest — intensifying competition among the United States, Russia, China and regional actors.
The reporting contains a notable inconsistency: Chinese outlets render the name of the official Trump said he spoke to as “吕特,” which corresponds to Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte rather than the NATO secretary-general. Rutte is not NATO’s secretary-general, and the misidentification underscores either a communications slip in Washington or a reporting error. Whatever the interlocutor’s identity, the claim that allied leaders are entertaining a territorial transfer is diplomatically fraught.
Politically, the gambit serves multiple domestic and international purposes. For a U.S. president seeking to project strength and command headlines, staking out territorial ambition is attention-grabbing. But practical realities — Greenlandic self-rule, Danish constitutional law, and regional sensitivities — make a transaction all but impossible without significant political cost. If pursued, such a policy would risk alienating Denmark and complicating NATO cooperation at a moment when alliance unity remains central to deterrence in Europe and the Arctic.
For global observers, the episode is a reminder that the Arctic is no longer peripheral. States are recalibrating policy to secure access to strategic zones and resources; rhetoric about purchase or control of territory foreshadows competition that will be settled through diplomacy, economic influence and military posture rather than by headline-grabbing proposals. The likely short-term outcome is diplomatic rebuke and clarifying public statements from Copenhagen and Nuuk; the longer-term consequence will be accelerated attention to Arctic governance, defense planning and resource diplomacy.