World Conflicts Monitor

Full Analysis

In early January—just weeks before Donald Trump's inauguration—Trump held a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago estate where he laid out an aggressive vision for American territorial expansion in his potential second term. During the conference, he claimed without evidence that China controlled the Panama Canal, criticized its historical transfer to Panama, and argued that America needed it for economic security. He then asserted that Greenland was similarly critical for national security, questioned Denmark's sovereignty over it, and even hinted at the possibility of using military force if Denmark did not relent. These statements set off a worldwide debate as Panama, Denmark, and Greenland each reaffirmed their rights over their territories.

Historically, America's expansion has involved both purchases and territorial pressures. From buying the Louisiana Territory in 1803 to acquiring Alaska in 1867, the U.S. has long pursued the acquisition of strategic lands. Greenland has been on America's radar for just as long. In the mid-19th century, shortly after the Alaska purchase, U.S. Secretary of State William H. Seward commissioned research into acquiring Greenland (and Iceland) to further pressure Canada between them. However, after a failed treaty for purchasing the Danish West Indies, Congress rejected subsequent offers, and the idea eventually faded into the background for decades.

Greenland's long history under Danish control is equally complex. Danish Vikings first settled the island around 1000 AD, but their presence waned and was replaced by the arrival of Inuit peoples around 1450. In 1721, Denmark reestablished a colony there, and Greenland remained under Danish oversight—with few exceptions, such as its U.S. military occupation during World War II when American forces prevented Nazi advances. Despite granting Greenland home rule in 1979 and a further self-government act in 2009 that paved a legal path to full independence via referendum, Denmark still controls foreign and defense policies for the territory, while Greenland remains heavily reliant on Danish subsidies.

The Cold War brought renewed American interest in Greenland. Geopolitically, its location in the Arctic was critical for early warning systems and a forward base against the Soviet Union. Thule Air Base became one of the U.S. military's key installations, facilitating reconnaissance and nuclear deterrence. After the Cold War, American activity waned but revived in the 2010s and 2020s amid renewed tensions with Russia—highlighted by the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Today, Greenland is not only strategically important for defense (with the evolving U.S. Space Force base at Patufik formerly known as Thule) but also for securing undersea fiber-optic cables that link continents and ensuring control of future Arctic trade routes as melting ice opens passageways.

Economically, Greenland's resource potential is immense. The island sits atop vast deposits of rare minerals critical to modern technology—43 out of 50 of the U.S. Critical Minerals list, including lithium, graphite, and uranium—as well as potential oil and gas reserves estimated to rival some of the world's major producers. However, the exploitation of these resources faces severe challenges due to the island's harsh terrain, a sparse population of roughly 56, 000, and the need to build a huge mining-related infrastructure. A reliance on foreign investment and labor could radically transform Greenland's society and raise issues of corruption and economic inequality.

Amid this complex backdrop, Greenland is at a crossroads politically. A strong pro-independence sentiment has grown—fueled by historical grievances such as Denmark's colonial-era policies (including controversial birth control programs and cultural assimilation initiatives) and the increasing desire to leverage the island's strategic and economic assets. Greenland has several potential futures: it could remain under Danish rule, choose full independence accompanied by potentially disruptive mining booms, opt for an American territorial purchase (which some critics argue would be the largest in U.S. history), or explore a Compact of Free Association (COFA) similar to those in Micronesia. Each option carries significant geopolitical, economic, and societal implications.

Ultimately, the decisions around Greenland's future—balancing strategic defense interests, economic opportunities, and local self-determination—must come from the Greenlandic people. Whether remaining part of Denmark, achieving full independence, or negotiating a unique relationship with global powers like the United States, Greenland's path will redefine its role in a rapidly changing Arctic world.