The acquisition of Greenland has repeatedly been a topic of discussion within US government circles since the 19th century. That is because of the island’s strategic location and its resources. In the summer of 2019, US President Donald Trump made his first bid to purchase Greenland from the Kingdom of Denmark. Since then, he has declared ownership and control of Greenland to be an “absolute necessity” for US national security. For their part, the Danish intelligence services have responded by identifying the United States – for the first time ever – as a potential threat to the security of the Kingdom since Washington is no longer ruling out the use of military force even against allies. But is Trump really concerned about security or simply acquiring what he sees as the world’s largest possible real-estate asset? How should his bid for Greenland be assessed? And what are the implications and policy options for Europe?
As the acquisition of Louisiana from France in 1803 and of Florida from Spain in 1819 shows, land purchases (or territorial exchanges) were not that unusual as recently as 200 years ago. But following the experience of colonial rule and two world wars, the right of peoples to self-determination has become the foundation of relations between states and a core principle of the Charter of the United Nations. For this reason, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen was right when, in 2019, she described Donald Trump’s proposal to make Greenland part of the United States as “absurd”, while Greenland’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded succinctly in a tweet: “We’re open for business, not for sale.” At the same time, Frederiksen assured the United States that Denmark would welcome “enhanced strategic cooperation in the Arctic”. In a lengthy speech to the US Congress on 4 March 2025, Trump explicitly acknowledged Greenland’s right to self-determination but once again stressed that ownership of the island was necessary for US national security and even international security.
Thus, on the one hand, Trump not only confirmed that he was aware of the right to self-determination but also conceded that the Greenlandic people were entitled to decide their future themselves. On the other hand, it was clear that acquiring Greenland had become an idée fixe of the US president. Trump insists that the US will “get” Greenland one way or the other.
Security interests or real estate?
Trump’s argument about the precarious security situation in the Arctic–North Atlantic region is based on the claim that Greenland is besieged by Chinese and Russian vessels.
It is true that in summer 2025, several Chinese icebreaking ships were deployed in the Arctic Ocean, providing further visual proof of China’s growing strategic interest. It is also true that the “Polar Silk Road” is an important component of China’s Arctic strategy. But there are no indications that Beijing intends to establish a military presence in the region in the near future. And while the possible deployment of Chinese strategic submarines in the region has been a recurring topic among security experts for years, such a move would require more advanced submarines and more detailed knowledge of the ocean.
Russia is the largest actor in Arctic. Yet, even during the Soviet era, it showed little interest in Greenland. The Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation is itself rich in resources, and securing and developing it already presents considerable challenges for Moscow. Right now, Russia does not need another such challenge in the region. However, like China, it remains a lingering threat.
With regard to the Greenland issue, Trump appears to be simply following his own instincts and sees the island as the largest possible real-estate deal of his life. Its acquisition would be an ideal-typical implementation of his “Make America Great Again” slogan and would leave Canada – which he has identified as the next candidate for takeover – strategically encircled.
On the other hand, the bid for Greenland makes sense if the geostrategic objective of the Trump administration is to establish a US-controlled North American hemisphere protected by a comprehensive defence system (“Golden Dome”). Significantly, this is a project that Ronald Reagan failed to realise 40 years ago. To this day, not even the outline of a convincing plan for such a defence system has been made public. That should come as no surprise since what has long been seen as the impossibility of erecting such an all-encompassing shield is more likely to be the reason for such an omission than the new lack of transparency at the Pentagon.
Moreover, unrestricted US ownership of Greenland could enable the creation of libertarian “freedom cities” in which national sovereignty and the rule of law would be replaced by the dominion of a far right, unregulated tech elite. The attractiveness of this vision for the ideologues who stand behind the president would be another plausible explanation for the persistence with which Trump clings to the idea of acquiring Greenland.
About the Author:
Dr Michael Paul is a Visiting Fellow in SWP’s International Security Research Division. He was a Senior Fellow in the same division from 2007 to 2025.