by Marco Dordoni (Arctic Desk) & Pedro Mendes (US Team)
Introduction
Trump’s second term as President of the United States, has already outlined his key objectives. High on his priorities is the acquisition of Greenland, an autonomous territory under Danish administration. This is not the first time Trump has expressed interest in purchasing Greenland. During his first term, he floated the idea, sparking mixed reactions internationally. Trump described the island as a strategic asset and an economic opportunity due to its abundant mineral resources and its strategic location in the Arctic. However, the Danish government firmly rejected the notion, stating that Greenland was "not for sale." Despite the earlier rejection, the renewed interest in Greenland could stem from the Arctic’s growing significance, both for its untapped natural resources and emerging maritime routes, particularly in the context of climate change and shifting global geopolitics.
This article seeks to examine the strategic interests of the United States in the Arctic—particularly in Greenland—and to trace the evolution of the U.S. Arctic policy over time. It aims to contextualise the resurgence of Trump’s focus on Greenland by analysing both historical developments and contemporary geopolitical dynamics shaping American foreign policy in the region.
The (Un)Frozen Path: U.S. Policy for the Arctic
It is important to analyse the US interest in the Arctic, from a traditional security perspective. As explained in the next section, the proximity of the border with Russia, through the Bering Strait, indicates the need for a greater armed presence, to counter Russia’s growing military activity, as well as the need for strategic dominance in the face of Russia’s ballistic missile range, concurrently with the presence of Russian nuclear submarines in the Kola Peninsula.
These facts brought to light the strategic potential of the area, Likewise, non-traditional security perspectives point to factors like climate change , which remain beyond the scope of the current article, but may bring a greater flow of traffic to the region, due to the melting of the surrounding ice, which calls for an increased focus on strategic opportunities, like new shipping routes, fibre cables, fishing lanes and raw minerals.
Current US Administration’s view on the Arctic echoes the former statements about the expansionist danger of Russia and China. Exacerbated by China’s 2018 policy paper, proclaiming itself a “near Arctic State”, China demonstrated interest in the area with initiatives and projects as the “Polar Silk Road”. Despite the dispute over its capabilities and status as an “Arctic State”, Beijing materialized US’s geopolitical fears in the Arctic with this document, positioning itself in the region aiming to challenge the remaining players.
Policy wise, tracing its origin in 2009, the US’s several documents, like the Arctic Region Policy Directive recognized the Arctic’s strategic importance to American interests, from a security and energy lens. It further led to a greater focus in future documents, as the comprehensive view offered by the 2022 US National Strategy for the Arctic Region and the 2024 DoD Arctic Strategy, which defined the Arctic as critical and prioritized four key vectors: security, climate change, sustainable development, and international governance.
After years as a footnote in US political priorities, the new American perspective of the Arctic region reacts to the current background. The several stances, policies, documents and increased activity attests to the importance of the region on the geopolitical chessboard.
Why Greenland Matters the U.S. National Security?
In recent years, Greenland has re-emerged as a strategic hub for global security and geopolitical stability. U.S. President Donald Trump notably emphasized this perspective, stating in a recent interview, “We really need Greenland for our national security.” This strategic importance encompasses in particular defense and military dimensions but also energy and economic security.
From a defense and military standpoint, Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine significantly reshaped Western strategic priorities, refocusing attention on the Arctic. . Moscow’s military build-up in the region—exemplified by bases such as Nagurskoye, located just 600 miles from Greenland—has heightened concerns in Washington. Greenland’s geographic location has historically been a cornerstone of transatlantic security, serving as a key site for the Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line radar system—based at Pituffik Space base formerly Thule Air Base—and playing a crucial role in anti-submarine warfare due to its strategic position near the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) gap.These installations, critical during the Cold War, contributed to NATO's strategic advantage and are once again viewed as essential in countering current threats—namely Russia and, increasingly in Trump’s view, China. The growing Sino-Russian cooperation in the Arctic, extending beyond economic collaboration, further underscores the region's strategic volatility.
Trump has argued that Denmark is ill-equipped to manage these emerging threats, citing its geographic distance from Greenland and limited military capabilities. Furthermore, Greenland's central position in the Arctic makes it increasingly relevant in light of new maritime trade routes expected to open annually due to the melting polar ice cap. Of particular interest to the United States are the Northwest Passage and the Transpolar Route, both of which could place Greenland at the heart of a strategic chokepoint in Arctic navigation.
Greenland has also become a critical focal point in the U.S.–China economic rivalry due to its abundance of strategic resources essential for the global energy transition and for advancing technological capabilities in the defense sector. The island contains 25 of the 34 minerals classified by the EU as Critical Raw Materials, including uranium, cobalt, lithium, and rare earth elements. Estimates suggest that Greenland holds approximately 1.5 million tons of rare earth elements—nearly equivalent to the entire U.S. reserve of 1.8 million tons—thus significantly elevating its value in American strategic planning.
In the context of rising tensions with China, securing access to Greenland’s critical mineral reserves could provide the United States with a significant strategic advantage, especially in the event of a trade conflict over rare earth elements. Nevertheless, substantial challenges hinder the exploitation of these resources. Although Greenland’s autonomous government controls its mineral rights and has expressed openness to foreign the territory suffers from severe infrastructure deficiencies—including a lack of roads and ports—which severely constrain mining operations. The typical timeline to open a new mine can extend up to 16 years, deterring many potential investors.
As reported by the Financial Times, currently only one U.S. company holds an exploration license in Greenland, in contrast to 28 licenses held by Canadian and British firms. While the Greenlandic government remains eager to attract foreign investment, high operational costs and logistical challenges have slowed development efforts. Consequently, despite its vast strategic and economic potential, much of Greenland’s resource wealth remains largely untapped.
Reflections and recent developments
The U.S. interest in Greenland, exemplified by Trump’s proposal to acquire the island—whether through economic means or other strategies—reflects a broader shift in international relations. Although firmly rejected by Denmark and the Greenlandic government with the slogan “Greenland is not for sale, and never will be,” the episode highlights how economic and strategic interests of major powers are increasingly challenging long-established principles of international law, such as territorial sovereignty and the inviolability of national borders. Washington’s focus on Greenland extends beyond the Trump presidency and is part of a larger Arctic strategy, driven by military considerations and the region’s vast reserves of minerals and hydrocarbons.
The general elections held on March 11, followed by negotiations that led to the formation of a new Greenlandic government, reaffirmed existing U.S. concerns and pressures. In response to mounting American efforts to acquire or exert military influence over Greenland, the majority party, Demokraatit—a moderate social-liberal party—opted to form a broad national unity coalition, securing 75% of the parliamentary seats. One of the coalition’s first actions was the release of a joint statement strongly condemning and opposing the repeated U.S. pressure directed at Greenland.
Despite Greenland's unified and firm response, U.S. interest and pressure have not subsided. Following President Trump’s remarks on the potential annexation of Greenland during his meeting with the NATO Secretary General, U.S. Vice President Vance conducted an official visit to the U.S. Space Base at Pituffik on March 29. During the visit, Vance reiterated Greenland’s strategic importance not only for U.S. national security but also for the security of Europe. He emphasized Denmark’s lack of preparedness and its inability to provide adequate defense capabilities for the island, arguing that this shortfall endangers both American and European citizens in the face of threats posed by Russia, China, and other actors.
The U.S. strategy appears to be clear: emphasize the importance of international security and highlight Greenland’s strategic significance in this context, positioning the American security umbrella as the only power capable of providing adequate protection—not only for Greenland and U.S. citizens, but also for European allies. This narrative underlines Denmark’s alleged unpreparedness and inability to ensure such security.
In this regard, the U.S. is likely to support Greenland’s path toward independence, with the aim of later offering military and economic protection. This approach leverages NATO’s limited engagement on the issue—an area still significantly influenced by the strategic direction set by the White House. —and the European Union’s current phase of redefining and reassessing its external action.