In the early hours of January 3, US special forces raided Venezuela’s presidential palace and in one of the boldest moves of either of Trump’s presidencies, nabbed Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro and his wife and transported them to New York to face criminal charges. The two were indicted, according to Trump, “for their campaign of deadly narco-terrorism against the United States.” This operation opens the door to major questions about the logic Trump might use when it comes to applying force against other states that he deems problematic. But it also presents another strategic dilemma: the current US president has, for years, had his eye set on acquiring Greenland. Should the arctic island be concerned? Probably, but not because a US military incursion is imminent.
The Danish government (Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark) is in full-blown crisis mode, worried about whether Trump could really decide to use military force against the island.
Trump’s desire to annex Greenland isn’t a new idea. He first floated it in 2019, offering to buy the island, but was told firmly it wasn’t for sale. The issue resurfaced in early 2025, implying that US control of Greenland was necessary and refusing to this day to rule out the use of military force to wrest it. For most of last year, the idea seemed to die down after JD Vance’s chilly reception during his trip to Greenland, but it didn’t disappear completely. In the hours after the military operation in Venezuela, Trump told reporters the US “need(s) Greenland from a national security situation. It’s so strategic.” And White House Deputy Chief of Staff for policy and homeland security advisor Stephen Miller said, “nobody’s going to fight the US over the future of Greenland.”
Now, the Danish government (Greenland is a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark) is in full-blown crisis mode, worried about whether Trump could really decide to use military force against the island.
This option remains unlikely. First, when comparing Greenland to Venezuela, Greenland is a distinct region requiring its own strategic approach, and the logic would differ from the Administration’s considerations in South America. The National Security Strategy, released in November 2025, highlights the need for America to control the Western Hemisphere, or a “Donroe Doctrine,” As trump calls it. This suggests the risks this administration would be willing to take to assert Western hemispheric dominance may be higher than those he’d be willing to take in Europe, especially regarding a NATO ally. Even Secretary of State Marco Rubio tried to assuage concerns in a closed-door Congressional briefing earlier this week, saying that the US seeks to buy Greenland, not invade it.
Second, any sort of military move would likely be deeply unpopular domestically. It flies in the face of Trump’s “America First” priorities and would put him on par with the very Washington military interventionists he constantly lambasts. And in Congress there seems to be rare bilateral consensus that military action would be unwise. The Bipartisan Friends of Denmark Caucus released a statement saying Trump’s “sabre-rattling” plays into the hands of US-adversaries like Russia and China.
But even though military action might be technically off the table, the Trump Administration is very serious about acquiring the Island sometime before the end of his second term. This means that Greenland, Denmark, and Europe more broadly should be ready to respond to some serious pressure, especially if it wants to remain independent.
The Bipartisan Friends of Denmark Caucus released a statement saying Trump’s “sabre-rattling” plays into the hands of US-adversaries like Russia and China.
Trump will want guaranteed access to Greenland’s raw materials for green technology, which is quickly attracting interest from China. This means Trump could decide to use a sort of carrots and sticks approach to ensure Greenland keeps China out. With the melting of Greenland’s huge ice sheets, opportunities to drill for oil and mining for minerals like copper, cobalt, lithium and nickel could emerge. Trump will want to make sure China stays out of that realm as well. And finally, melting ice also means extending the length of time northern shipping routes are navigable each year. China and Russia already agreed to collaborate on developing new arctic shipping routes. The Trump Administration would want to ensure US dominance over the region by expanding US military presence on the Island and building a broader regional network that ensures US primacy in physical control points like ports and logistics hubs.
Trump’s priority, especially when it comes to Europe, has always been deal making and being able to claim “wins.” He’s done this with tariffs, with defense spending, and would likely take this same approach toward Greenland. A military intervention would be costly and dangerous and would not only spell the end of NATO (something Trump wouldn’t care much about) but could also hasten the end of MAGA. To avoid this scenario, the more likely outcome is a sustained campaign of economic pressure until Greenland bends to Trump’s will and he’s able to claim a technical victory.
This commentary originally appeared in The Times of India.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
