On January 20, President Donald Trump told followers on social media that his aim to control Greenland "will never change" and declined to rule out taking the world’s largest island by force. He framed the objective bluntly: to strip sovereignty from Denmark, a NATO ally, and bring Greenland under American control. The comment follows earlier threats and reflects a renewed, public escalation of rhetoric over an unusually explosive territorial claim.
Washington already maintains a significant military footprint in and around Greenland, including deployments of F‑35 fighters and other equipment, a fact that underlines the strategic importance the United States places on the Arctic. Danish defence documents cited by local media allege that U.S. actors tried last year to bypass formal channels to gather intelligence on Greenland’s bases, ports and airfields. Those maneuvers, and now the president’s remarks, have fuelled Copenhagen’s suspicion and alarm.
Denmark’s political response has been firm. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen told parliament that sovereignty and territory are not up for negotiation and said Copenhagen must prepare for all contingencies, including retaliatory trade measures if Washington acts on recent threats to levy tariffs. A Danish MP warned that if the United States were to use force, Denmark’s armed forces would defend Greenland; Copenhagen is planning to deploy up to 1,000 combat troops there in 2026, with naval and air assets also under consideration.
Some forces are already moving. About 150 Danish soldiers have arrived at southern Greenland’s Sondrestromfjord, and a similar number are stationed in Nuuk, the capital. The deployment plans signal that Denmark takes the rhetoric seriously enough to prepare a military posture rather than treat the episode as mere bluster.
Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, but its strategic significance stretches far beyond its small population. Its location offers control over North Atlantic sea lanes and air approaches to North America, proximity to Russian Arctic forces, and potential access to mineral and hydrocarbon reserves that are newly accessible as polar ice recedes. For the United States, Greenland has long been viewed through the lens of basing and early‑warning infrastructure that underpin continental defence.
The suggestion that the U.S. might seize territory from an ally would be unprecedented in post‑war Western diplomacy and would contravene international law and NATO norms. Even the threat of such action damages alliance trust, complicates cooperation on defence and deterrence, and risks reciprocal measures—economic or military—by an affronted ally. Copenhagen’s readiness to respond with both military reinforcement and trade measures underscores how bilateral relations with the United States could be strained beyond a conventional policy dispute.
What matters globally is not only the immediate Franco‑American or Danish‑American tension but the broader trend toward Arctic geostrategic competition. Russia has increased Arctic operations and China has shown interest in Arctic routes and resources; the United States’ renewed focus on Greenland, whether rhetorical or operational, signals that the region will be an arena of contest in the years ahead. If words harden into posture, NATO cohesion in the High North could become as contested as sovereignty itself.
Despite the provocative language, the prospect of an actual U.S. military seizure of Greenland remains remote — such an action would carry severe legal, diplomatic and logistical costs. Still, the episode is consequential: it demonstrates how populist presidential rhetoric can reshape alliance politics, accelerate military planning by small states, and intensify competition in strategically vital regions even without an immediate change of borders.