Beneath The Ice
- Daniel Trangeled
- May 5
- 16 min read
Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland
The return of Donald Trump to the White House has brought Greenland into the limelight of international politics. The massive arctic island, a member of the Danish commonwealth and inhabited by little under 57,000 people, has found itself at the center of geopolitical discourse ever since Trump's rhetoric on wishing for the territory to be brought under US control, by any means necessary. The world has watched as Denmark and the EU have responded to the president’s statements, and, equally importantly, how the Greenlandic people themselves have reacted to this claim on their sovereignty. Independence has always been a major factor in Greenlandic politics, with every party having a stance on the matter. With the people of Greenland having held elections on March 11th, we are potentially witnessing a massive shift in geopolitical tides, both in regard to Greenland itself, as well as the future of global diplomacy.
The History of Denmark and the US
The United States has historically maintained a significant role in Greenland, and this relationship is the root of many of Trump’s justifications for US control over the territory. The US and Denmark have taken part in various territorial agreements, notably the Danish sale of what are now called the US Virgin Islands to the Americans in 1917 by referendum, due to deficits in the Danish treasury.
However, the key moment in US-Denmark relations (and, by proxy, US-Greenland relations) came in 1941, with the “Agreement Relating to the Defence of Greenland”. Though clarifying “recognition of and respect for sovereignty of the Kingdom of Denmark over Greenland”, the treaty gave the US unprecedented influence over the territory. This included, among other things, giving the US the right to “construct, maintain and operate such landing fields, seaplane facilities and radio and meteorological installations” (United States Department of State, 1941). It is worth noting, however, that this agreement was famously not signed by the Kingdom of Denmark, as the name would suggest, but by the Danish Ambassador to the United States Henrik Kaufmann, who saw his actions as being in the best interest of the Danish people. Denmark, occupied by Nazi Germany at the time, actively responded to the treaty by charging Kaufmann with high treason and stripping him of his titles. Though this response was later revoked by the eventually liberated Denmark, it remains a controversial action which many see as having contributed to extensions of US influence in Greenland. This is specifically because of the 1951 Greenland Defence Agreement which replaced the first treaty, this time officially signed by an independent Denmark. Though this returned control of the island to Denmark, it also notably expanded the US military rights in the region. This effectively gave the latter complete freedom of movement within Greenland between the many bases it was now allowed to construct, under the conditions that defence be carried out jointly with Denmark and that Danish laws and customs were to be respected.
Since the end of the Second World War, Denmark has remained a faithful ally to the US. The Danish people wished to abandon neutrality, the driving factor behind this change stemming from the five years it spent under German occupation. “Never again a 9th of April”, referencing the date Denmark was invaded in 1940, was and still remains a phrase many used to protest Danish post-war neutrality. Denmark initially wished to establish a Scandinavian Defence Union with the rest of the Nordic countries as an alternative to a partnership with the rest of Western Europe. However, with Finland committing to an avoidance of western defence pacts in the Finno-Soviet “Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance” in 1948, Sweden affirming its staunch neutrality and Norway leaning towards the rest of Europe, such an idea eventually fell through. This, paired with positive relations with the US, led to Denmark’s eventual decision to take part in the founding of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in 1949. Denmark thereby also took part in most NATO operations, committing troops with the rest of the alliance to Afghanistan between 2001 and 2021 and assisting logistically during the Balkan Wars in the 1990s.
Greenland’s political status has continuously evolved throughout the 20th century. The territory has generally been autonomously run in recent times, gradually gaining more and more responsibility until two landmark autonomy laws: first a “home governance” law in 1979 followed by an expanded full self-governance framework in 2009. These laws gave Greenland governance over notable key areas, including effective independence in the areas of education and healthcare, as well as in the critical field of natural resources, which has proven to be a key factor in the recent tensions with the US. Denmark itself still plays a crucial role in Greenland, however, retaining control over foreign, defence and monetary policy, as well as contributing financially to the territory on a yearly basis with the so-called “bloktilskud” (block grant) to fund the local governance established by the aforementioned laws on the matter. This means that, though Greenland retains effective control of day-to-day governance, Denmark still plays a prevalent role in its representation and political affairs on a global scale, a fact which fuels much of the independence movement in Greenland to this day.
Trump’s (second) claim on Greenland
Since the president’s inauguration, Mr. Trump’s return to the Oval Office has brought tensions to Danish-US relations, with the issue having made its way into international headlines more than ever before.
It is not the first time Mr. Trump has pushed for Greenland to be under US control. In his first term, the president notably proposed that the US purchase the island in 2019. This was an endeavor which was ridiculed by Danish officials, who pushed that the territory is not for sale, with the president cancelling his planned visit to Denmark that same year in response. Greenland’s purchase was not raised by the president after this, leading most to assume the issue was closed.
However, with Trump’s re-election came the return of his wishes for the US to have complete control over the island, this time far more serious. The White House’s justification for the policy this time stems from the idea of maintaining US “national security” (Duster, 2025), with Trump already speaking of the importance of Greenland for the nation’s defence policy well before his confirmation as president in late January. This notably included the administration refusing to rule out the potential for military action to ensure US control (Weissert, 2025, passim). The president himself has on numerous occasions persisted that efforts to obtain the island will be successful, even stating during his address to Congress that “one way or the other, we’re going to get it”. Denmark has in response committed to Greenland not being for sale, affirming that the Greenlandic people have the right to decide how they are governed for themselves. The leaders of the two countries have engaged in various phone calls discussing the topic since the president has taken office; they have, however, failed so far as to reach any concrete agreement on the issue. Experts involved have even stated that one of these phone calls ended particularly badly, with one stating that though the issue was previously hard to take seriously, the situation has become “potentially very dangerous” (Milne, 2025)
Reactions in Denmark and Greenland have been varied. The Danish government, being a broad centrist coalition of the centre-left Social Democrats, centrist Moderates and centre-right liberal party, led by Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, began with a withdrawn stance on the matter. Though Frederiksen stated clearly that Greenland is “not for sale”, the government has emphasised that the US remains Denmark’s closest ally and that it is ultimately not up to Denmark to force Greenland’s loyalty. However, as tensions have grown between Washington and Copenhagen, Danish leaders have increasingly stood up to Trump’s claims, especially as breaches in Danish sovereignty have become more and more frequent, such as with US Vice President JD Vance’s visit to Greenland. Greenlandic opinion on the matter has been unclear. Recent surveys have found that 85% of Greenlanders would prefer to remain a part of the Danish commonwealth as opposed to becoming a part of the US. However, pro-independence parties have performed well both in the polls and elections. Previous leader of the Greenlandic government and now opposition leader Mute B. Egede has thus far played a key role in the representation of Greenlandic opinion, namely through a clear stance against the territory becoming a part of the US, while still firmly asserting that this does not mean an abandonment of independence politics.
Why is Greenland so important?
Greenland has been deemed by Trump to be vital to US national security, and though the president’s conclusion that it should be under US control is controversial, the territory does have massive strategic importance which will only continue to grow as the years go on. The geographic position of the island is a clear reason why any nation would see value in its control. As the ice in the Arctic continues to melt, new sea lanes will inevitably form and expand in the next few years, providing opportunities for countries to access the Atlantic, with Trump specifically naming Russia and China as the primary threats for influence in the region.
Greenland is also of particular importance to the United States because of the country’s current military presence in the area, most prominently through the Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as the Thule Air Base before it was renamed in 2023. The Pituffik base is a defence installation built by the US in 1951 under the agreement signed with Denmark the same year, in part as an extension to the aforementioned treaty regarding Greenland’s occupation by US forces. The 1941 treaty had set much of the precedent for American military involvement in Greenland, however, it was the 1951 treaty which concretely established such rights in a peacetime context. Specifically, its outline of the potential for expansions of radar stations and airports has allowed for the increasingly involved US activity in the region. The importance of the base lies in its missile capabilities. Defensively, Pituffik has been used by the US to host Ballistic Missile Early Warning Systems (BMEWS), and continues to host radar facilities as was agreed to by the 1941 treaty. This was especially important during the Cold War, with the Arctic being the shortest distance between the US and mainland Russia, and thus the most efficient route through which to launch a missile. However, Pituffik was also established to assume a key offensive role during the Cold War in the event of war between the US and USSR. The construction and expansion of the Pituffik Base was undoubtedly a result of US Cold War military policies under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who pushed for a “New Look” in US defence. This new way of approaching US power was one based on the prioritisation of nuclear weapons rather than conventional arms as the key to maintaining peace, with the implication being that a credible nuclear option would deter any potential threat. Greenland was a core part of this, and Pituffik can be seen as having been expanded to reinforce this very policy, with initial plans for the region being even more ambitious in this regard. Famously, the US initiated Project Iceworm, a series of scientific tests at the now shut down Camp Century to experiment with storing and launching nuclear missiles from underneath the ice, in the attempt to ensure the safety of the missiles in the event of a first strike. The base serves to represent US freedom of movement and operations throughout Greenland, a right it has de facto retained since the Second World War. This gives the US a vital benchmark from which to expand its arctic foreign policy, highlighting the relevance of the base to Trump’s claims.
Aside from its geographic strengths, Greenland also hosts a variety of crucial materials and natural resources, most importantly what are known as the Rare Earth Elements (REE), made up of 17 metallic elements including lutetium, europium, praseodymium and more. The demand of these metals is set to skyrocket in the future as a part of the green transition, with many of them being crucial in clean energy generation. The importance of these minerals lies within the current state of REE extraction globally. Currently, China has a near monopoly on both the extraction and refining of Rare Earth Elements, having around an 85% share of the market and being by far the greatest exporter of the metals (ibid, passim). Greenland’s endowment with REEs has already begun to be considered for investment, both domestically by Greenlandic firms as well as recently by various American mining companies. These investments have been directed towards the so-called Kuannersuit (Kvanefjeld) plateau, which is not only rich in rare earth elements, but also notably abundant in uranium. Greenlandic minerals could be an opportunity for Trump to expand his goals for American self-sufficiency, especially given the rather hostile trade policies he has brought upon the world, including China and the EU. The direct control of Greenland would allow the US to fuel its own production of critical technologies in green energy and electronics within the country itself. In theory, this could help the US free itself from its reliance on China in the field, with eight REE deposits having been discovered in Greenland thus far, two of which being among the ten largest in the world (Sørensen, et al, 2018). Though only one mine is currently operational, a US annexation could help make investment into REE extraction more streamlined and prioritised, contributing to making a supply of the materials much more stable. This is an especially important factor given the President’s aforementioned protectionist trade policies and the general theme of US self-sufficiency in current White House policy. Though the physical extraction of REEs from Greenland is obviously a long-term project, the importance of the resources makes their presence on the island a crucial factor in US interest in the island.
A New Government in Greenland
The recent Greenlandic elections, held on March 11th, were widely discussed across the international community prior to their occurrence. Both US and Danish government officials expressed opinions on the matter. Trump in particular emphasised his solidarity for Greenlandic self-determination, clearly a show of support for pro-independence parties. Though Denmark remained impartial in the discussions, various leading politicians expressed their hope that Greenland and Denmark remain close.
The Greenlandic parties reflect themselves very closely to the Danish political spectrum. Independence was of course the biggest theme of the election, and reflected itself in other traditional elements of Greenlandic politics, notably mineral rights. The previously incumbent Inuit Ataqatigiit (Community of People), a socialist-leaning party in favour of Greenlandic independence from the Danish constitution, lost its majority in the Greenlandic parliament. The winning party was Demokraatit (The Democrats), a centrist party led by Jens-Frederik Nielsen in favour of a more gradual independence from Denmark and prioritising the strengthening of Greenlandic welfare programmes and education reform. However, Naleraq (Values), a party founded on immediate independence from Denmark, saw major gains in their share of the seats, winning over 24% of the vote. Independence in Greenland is a complicated issue. Recent surveys indicate that over 80% of its population support independence from Denmark. However, this is paired with more than 85% actively against the idea of joining the US.
On March 27th, on the eve of US Vice President JD Vance’s controversial visit to Greenland, a unity government was agreed upon between most parties, including both the major centre-left and centre-right groups as well as two smaller ones on both sides of the aisle. Notably, this government includes all parties represented in the Greenlandic parliament except for Naleraq, with their hasty independence views being heavily criticised by the others given the current political climate. The new government represents over 75% of the voter base, with the motivation behind such a political structure clearly based on what many Greenlandic politicians see as an existential crisis. The new government will be led by Mr. Nielsen. Though a domestic platform based on education reform and fishing expansion was the foundation of the Democrats’ campaign, the new government’s priority will be by its very nature and context focused on foreign policy, including Greenlandic independence as well as undoubtedly revising the country’s financial agreements with Denmark.
The long-term effects of the election results themselves are yet to be seen. Trump was quick to express satisfaction at the centre-right victory, stating during a press conference with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte that “it was a good election for [the US]” and stating that Mr. Nielsen is a “good guy”. The results, however, do not indicate that a Greenlandic government would support integration with the US any time soon. The mainstream centre-aligned parties are both in support of gradual independence from Denmark, and have both vehemently criticised Mr. Trump’s comments on acquiring the territory. Jens-Frederik Nielsen himself, despite being personally congratulated by President Trump for his victory, has firmly stood against any ideas of the incoming Greenlandic government working for integration with the US. The Demokraatit leader even took part in an anti-Trump demonstration in Nuuk in front of the American consulate, stating that Greenland’s right to autonomy and freedom will “never, never, never be on the table”. The government of national unity, being the first in Greenlandic history, paints a clear picture of the current priorities of Greenland’s leadership across the aisle. The greater disagreements on domestic policy between the parties have taken a step back in the political agenda, with the exclusion of Naleraq indicating that the new government structure will not greatly change Greenland’s position of US annexation.
What is the future of Greenland?
The future of Greenland, and the tensions around its control, remain uncertain. Trump has so far been unwilling to drop the issue, with new statements continuously being made and US annexation of Greenland seeming to shift from Trump’s rhetoric to official White House policy. Trump continues to be adamant on the inevitability of Greenland becoming a part of the United States, whether this be commercially or militarily.
Denmark, along with most European countries, has been in the process of ramping up its defence spending ever since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. Prior to Trump’s inauguration, this has primarily involved the renewal of domestic ammunition production, reopening of previously closed military bases, and in prioritising the build-up of fully equipped and combat-ready divisions, the latter area being one Denmark has until recently fallen behind on. However, with the new administration has come a shift in Danish defence policy, with additional funds now being allocated to strengthen Arctic defence. This includes the expansion of the Sirius Patrol, a military unit responsible for the Danish ground presence in Greenland, which will now be modernised with the addition of motorised snowmobiles and the addition of special forces to the group. Further investments have been made in the planned construction of two new Thetis-class ships designed for arctic climates, which will assist in the naval patrol of the inhabited parts of the Greenlandic coasts. However, Denmark, much like other EU nations, has been struggling with effectively being able to ramp up its military capabilities in the short term despite commitments for future investment. This is especially true in regard to the current lack of manpower in the Danish army, with the military missing 25% of the soldiers it was meant to have trained by 2025.
Trump seems thus far to be unwilling to let go of the Greenland issue, despite opposition from the international community, not least from Denmark and Greenland themselves. The president seems to be pushing the claim far more seriously than in his first term, and seems to be approaching his gambit with greater calculation and purpose than the less serious previous attempt. Donald Trump Jr. visited Greenland already before his father even took office, allegedly offering free food to homeless people who attended events organised by the MAGA campaign. This has been paired with increasingly directly hostile remarks by the president, with a consistent theme of these statements being his view of the inevitability of Greenland joining the US “no matter what”. What started as attempting to broker a deal between Denmark and the US has since shifted more into threats of retaliatory trade measures and even direct military intervention. More recently, Vice President Vance visited Pituffik Space Base, originally planned to be part of a longer stay in Greenland including the capital of Nuuk, until the trip’s cancellation following protest of the visit in the city. Vance, accompanied by the Second Lady and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, echoed Trump in speaking out against Denmark’s faithfulness as an ally, specifically concerning how Denmark “[has] not done their job in keeping Greenland safe”. However, Vance did notably distance himself from Trump’s unwillingness to deny US military involvement, and underlined that he personally does not agree that the US is changing its security policy in regard to Greenland. In fact, the Vice President spent most of his speaking time outlining his concerns regarding Denmark’s ability to adequately defend Greenland, as well as further accusations of the country not giving the territory its deserved right of self-determination.
There is after all the question on whether Greenland can ever truly be independent despite the future of its legal status. A territory as vitally placed and containing such critical resources is unlikely to ever not experience a degree of foreign interest, whether this is from the US, China, Russia or others. Greenland does of course have relative autonomy in its day-to-day governance, and, however reliant it is on funds from the Danish government, there is a general consensus between the people of Greenland that full independence should be the overarching ambition. In practice, however, Greenland has already been established as a vital theatre in the geopolitics of the next decades, and it is difficult to imagine any partnership between the territory and any one country which is not hierarchical in nature. The US’s push for control of the island has reminded the world of the Greenland issue, and has highlighted the importance of the Arctic as a whole in future politics. We do not yet know what the endgame of the president’s claim will look like; however, it has already proven itself to be a battlefield which has brought in other political issues within Trump’s foreign policy. Greenland in its own right represents a greater theme in Trump-era US-EU relations. The president’s distancing from diplomatic conventions between the two entities, and Trump’s views on making the US more self-sufficient making the island’s resource prospects even more crucial, are paving the way for escalating political hostility in the future.
For now, all that is for certain is that the issue of Greenland is far from resolved.
The world will watch not only as a society moves towards independence, but as the powers that be scramble to create order from what is slowly becoming a crisis in the Arctic.
Bibliography:
Bank, F. et.al 2025 Grønlandsk toppolitiker punkterer Trumps drøm: 'Og så må han synes om mig, hvad han vil', Danmarks Radio, 16 March 2025
Bryant, M. 2025 ‘Homeless people given free lunch’ to attend Trump Jr event in Greenland” The Guardian, 16 January 2025
Dall, A. 2024 'En gamechanger for Vesten': Selskab vil puste nyt liv i grønlandsk mineprojekt, Danmarks Radio, 20 July 2024
Danmarks Radio. 2025 Enighed i Grønland: Ny regering på plads, Danmarks Radio, 27 March 2025
Duster, C. 2025 What to know about Trump and his keen interest in Greenland, NPR, January 7 2025
Fich, M. 2025 Vance: Der er ingen planer om at udvide amerikansk tilstedeværelse i Grønland, Danmarks Radio, 28 March 2025
Folketinget. 2025 Danmarks første folkeafstemning: Salget af de dansk-vestindiske øer Folketinget, 2025
Hansen, L. 2025 Overblik: Her er alle punkterne i den nye forsvarsaftale, Altinget, 1 May 2024
Hjelmgaard, K. et.al. 2025 With jokes about polar bear plunges and Trump interest, JD and Usha Vance land in Greenland, USA Today, 28 March 2025
Jungersen, R. 2025 Med Nato-chefen ved sin side luftede Trump endnu en gang tanker om at få kontrol med Grønland, Danmarks Radio, 13 March 2025
Kalvig, P et.al. 2014 Sjældne jordarter (REE) i Grønland, Dagens Grønland, April 2014
Laursen, K. 2025 Aftalen er skrevet under: Vil bygge arktiske skibe i Danmark, Søfart, 19 March 2025
Milne, R et.al. 2025 Donald Trump in fiery call with Denmark’s prime minister over Greenland, Financial Times, January 24 2025
New York Times. 2025 Full Transcript of President Trump’s Speech to Congress, New York Times, March 4 2025
Nielsen, K et.al. 2021 Camp Century: The Untold Story of America's Secret Arctic Military Base Under the Greenland Ice, Columbia University Press, July 2021
Peterson and Schriever Space Force Base. 2025 PITUFFIK SPACE BASE, GREENLAND, United States Space Force, 2025
Retsinformation. 2009 Lov om Grønlands selvstyre, Folketinget, 12 June 2009
Snedker, V et.al. 2025 Valgresultatet er klar: Sådan har grønlænderne stemt, Danmarks Radio, 12 March 2025
Sørensen, L. et al. 2018 The rare earth element potential in Greenland, Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), February 2018
United States Department of State. 1941 Agreement relating to the defence of Greenland, Department of State, April 9 1941
Vaillant, T. 2024 Greenland’s Rare Earths Attract European and U.S. Interest, Signaling Potential Mining Boom, Pulitzer Center, 14 November 2024
Weissert, W et.al. 2025 Trump won’t rule out use of military force to seize Panama Canal and Greenland in first remarks since vote certification PBS News, January 7 2025
Comments