Recently, former President Donald Trump has brought back a proposal he once floated in 2019—buying Greenland, a mostly self-governing territory of Denmark. For the duration of his administration, he dove headfirst into establishing U.S. dominance over the Arctic region. He pointed to national security issues as his main justification for these moves. Recently, he took to Twitter to double down on the urgency of the situation, declaring that the United States “needs Greenland very badly.”
Trump’s rhetoric is escalating dangerously. He vowed to move forward on Greenland, “regardless of whether they want it or not.” His comments come at a time when only 7% of Americans support the notion of a military invasion of the territory. Despite this absence of domestic support, Trump isn’t budging from his position.
Trump may have thought he was merely buying real estate with his proposal to acquire Greenland. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has given an equally sharp warning. She argues that U.S. military intervention in Greenland would likely threaten NATO and unravel the security arrangements established after World War II. Greenlanders have made it crystal clear that they want nothing to do with the United States. Yet a 2025 poll indicates that 85% of them oppose this plan.
Trump’s desire to purchase Greenland isn’t entirely new — he first publicly suggested the U.S. buy the territory while in office back in 2019. His latest and most lucid threats consist of notice that the U.S. would retaliate if Russia or China tried to take over Greenland.
“If we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over [Greenland]. And we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor.” – Donald Trump
Despite Denmark’s and Greenland’s protestations, Trump continues to argue that the U.S. will do what is in its best interest with respect to the territory. He stated that actions could be taken “either the nice way or the more difficult way.”
Against this dramatic backdrop of increasing tensions, Trump’s statement highlights a greater trend that connects national security with land use and control. Many detractors have recently raised alarm about his approach, warning that such hawkish posturing risks an escalation into conflict where none exists.