Arctic security concerns
When president Trump in 2020 first raised the idea of acquiring Greenland, he was met with universal derision. The Danish prime minster dismissed the notion as absurd, while the establishment media treated it as a punch line and a joke. Once again, the critics were wrong and without understanding that the planet is changing, and the Arctic is becoming more accessible and therefore more important from an economic and geopolitical perspective. Trump’s thinking is both long-term and strategic. Greenland is only part of the U.S. desire to revamp the Arctic policy.
On the grand chessboard of global power, geography is destiny. The Arctic is undergoing a tremendous transformation, that is accelerating. The Arctic, once a frozen afterthought, is now the front line of strategic competition and cooperation. At its heart lies Greenland, the world largest island, with immense untapped potential and irreplaceable geopolitical significance. Greenland is part of Denmark, and that can certainly be questioned as the days of colonization is over a long time ago, and Greenland has been ignored. As it is growing in importance, why would the people in Greenland want to be subject to colonial status under Danish rule? Most likely not much longer. For Greenland to achieve independence, it must secure its economy and defense. Trump is arguing that the U.S. can help, which is likely the case. After all, the population of Greenland is less than 60,000 people and the economy is a tiny fragment of the U.S. There are vast opportunities in closer cooperation.
Beneath Greenland’s ice and rock lies a treasure of rare earth metals essential for AI and modern technology. As ice recedes, new maritime routes are emerging, reshaping global trade. Greenland, the epicenter of great-power competition and human and nature potential, offers a strategic partnership waiting to be forged.
Since the 2009 Self-Government Act (from Denmark), Greenland has exercised increasing autonomy from Denmark. A referendum on full independence could happen at any time, so the U.S. has a narrow window to strengthen ties before other powers move in. The Trump administration can successfully negotiate a deal with the Greenlandic government through multiple paths, each securing America’s Arctic interests while honoring the aspirations of the Greenlandic Inuit people.
If this is actually happening, what options does that U.S. has to form closer ties with Greenland? One option is to fully active the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement, which granted the U.S. exclusive jurisdiction over defense installations and personnel in Greenland under NATO. In exchange, the U.S. committed to Greenland’s protection during the Cold War, given Denmark’s limited capacity to do so. This agreement allows the U.S. to negotiate long-term leases for key areas, including sites rich in rare-earth deposits, deep-water ports or suited for military bases. Expanding such leases, like the one now in effect for the U.S.-operated Pituffik Space Base, could drive immediate economic growth through infrastructure investment and job creation.
Another option is a Compact of Free Association, modeled after U.S. agreements with three Pacific island nations. A COFA with Greenland would preserve its self-governance while providing U.S. defense guarantees, economic aid and other benefits. It would strengthen Greenland’s autonomy while securing America’s strategic foothold In the Arctic, anchored by Alaska.
Another option would be that the U.S. could form a new trilateral agreement with Greenland and Denmark to formalize a closer Arctic cooperation. This would allow Denmark, too, to collaborate with the U.S. on vital energy and rare-earth processing projects. For Greenland, a deeper partnership with the U.S. promises transformative benefits. American investment could boost the economy and modernize infrastructure, raising living standards across the island. Education and technology exchanges could let Greenlanders shape their own future, rooted in both independence and prosperity. A strong alliance with the U.S. would safeguard Greenland’s sovereignty, shielding it from potential undue influence from China and other powers.
For the U.S., the stakes are high. A stronger U.S. presence in Greenland would counter adversarial militarization of the Arctic, block economic encroachment by competitors and secure control over vital rare-earth resources, reducing American dependence on vulnerable supply chains now dominated by China. Militarily, Greenland is a perfect twin to Alaska. Their locations on either side of the continent join into a strategic linchpin, offering forward bases essential for Arctic, North Atlantic and North Pacific security.
When president Truman proposed buying Greenland in 1946, it was dismissed as unrealistic. Today, the stakes are higher and the global geopolitical tension higher. As the climate is changing and the Arctic is changes, the opportunities are also much greater. To look at the map and understand how ice is melting and now opening are developing, the Arctic is clearly the next American frontier.
By acting now with vision and resolve, Trump can secure America’s leadership in the Arctic for generations to come and at the same time helping Greenland break free from Denmark and help them achieve its aspirations as a partner, an ally and perhaps, one day, part of the U.S. The situation is changing rapidly, and its importance should not be underestimated.