This article is written by Nikolai Morton (he/him), a second-year English & History undergraduate student at The University of Warwick, and writer for The Boar.
In the lead-up to Donald Trump’s second inauguration, the political scene was again awash with rumours of his expansionist territorial ambitions. Most prominent was his desire for control of Greenland, which he asserted in December was “an absolute necessity". The world’s largest island and home to 57,000 people, Greenland represents a foreign policy remnant from his first term, which didn’t come to fruition and now appears to be a MAGA target once more. Citing national security as his motivation, many spectators have questioned whether Trump actually means to pursue the acquisition of Greenland, or whether this is just the latest example of his populist political bravado. When it comes to Donald Trump, anything is possible.
The newly elected President has refused to rule out the possibility of acquiring Greenland by economic pressure or military invasion, telling reporters: “No, I can’t assure you on either of those two. But I can say this, we need them for economic security […] We need Greenland for national security reasons.” Trump stressed that the island, which has hosted a US military base since 1951, is strategically important for tracking the activities of Chinese and Russian ships, which, according to him, are “all over the place”.
The island is part of the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom Gap – a strategic maritime region which Trump likely aspires to dominate. Hugged by the fabled Northwest Passage shipping lane to its west, it is easy to see why the territory would flare up dollar signs in Trump’s eyes. Climate change has likewise played a part in escalating the financial value of the region, contributing to the rapid melting of ice caps and the concomitant opening of new lucrative shipping routes. According to the Arctic Council, Arctic shipping rose by 37% in the decade leading up to 2024.
Nevertheless, Trump’s foreign policy designs in Greenland have so far been impeded. It remains an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, even if it has been heading towards full independence with Denmark’s consent for some time now (it gained the right to unilaterally declare independence through a public vote back in 2009). The Danish Crown has highlighted its cultural ties to the region in recent months, updating its coat of arms in December to increase the prominence of Greenland’s polar bear. It announced an increase in its defence spending of a “double-digit billion amount” in krone (or at least £1.2 billion) just days later, likely due to Greenland’s increased prominence on the international radar.
On the political front, Trump’s calls to take over Greenland have been met with stiff refusals from Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, largely through avowals that the territory is not Denmark’s to give away. Her response, reiterated in a 45-minute phone call with Trump, was reminiscent of a similar episode in 2019 during Trump’s first term, when Frederiksen said: “Greenland is not for sale. Greenland is not Danish. Greenland is Greenlandic.” Nevertheless, Trump envisions the potential acquisition as a game changer in bolstering the US sphere of influence, particularly in what some deem a new period of economic cold war.
Delegating the decision on Greenland’s future to Greenlanders reflects a mutual understanding between Denmark and Greenland that the era of political association is waning, even if Greenland’s economic entanglement with Denmark itself remains strong. Greenlandic Prime Minister, Múte Egede, in his New Year address, spoke of how it is time for Greenland to forge its own path – to shake off the “shackles of the colonial era”. However, 60% of the territory’s economy is still dependent on Denmark, and it still relies on a roughly $500 million annual subsidy from the Scandinavian country. Denmark is also responsible for the would-be nation’s defence operations and even its currency. As a result, one wonders if severing ties with Denmark would, at least in the short term, be detrimental to the Arctic territory.
Should Greenland choose this path, it may consider turning to Trump’s America anyhow, with one scenario being a special association with the USA akin to that with the Marshall Islands. Such economic overtures from Trump would foster a financial dependency on the US government, despite granting Greenland sovereignty. It would, hence, be prudent for Egede’s government to continue on its current path of economic diversification to deter against becoming completely beholden to Trump’s America. The November opening of a new international airport in Nuuk, the Greenlandic capital city, exemplified this approach, marking a significant step in Greenland’s bid to expand its economy outside of the traditional fishing industry.
Danish Foreign Minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, has expressed doubts about the possibility of Greenland becoming absorbed into the US federal system as its youngest state. Historical large-scale territorial transactions of this kind include the 1803 Louisiana Purchase from France – a crucial landmark in the American expansion westward – and the $7.2 million Alaska Purchase from the Russian Empire in 1867. In real terms, the Alaska Purchase would be worth $153.5 million today. This falls vastly short of previous inflated US offers for Greenland, not to mention the territory’s 2021 GDP of $3.24 billion.
Locked inside Greenland’s ice sheets are a wealth of abundant and as-yet untapped natural resources which could bolster this valuation even further. With enough rapidly melting ice to raise global sea levels by 7.4 metres should it all disappear, Greenland holds vast amounts of oil and natural gas. Moreover, it houses rare earth minerals which are highly sought-after in the green energy sector and even for the manufacturing of military equipment. The economic prospects buried beneath Greenland’s ice are unfathomably large, and, with the current dominance of China in the rare earth mineral market, it is easy to see why Trump’s attention is fixated on Greenland. As an unabashed advocate of fossil fuel exploitation, his hypothetical US-Greenland relationship would likely rekindle offshore oil development of Greenland, which was halted in 2021.
Trump’s insistence on acquiring Greenland signals to the world that he is intent on securing a real estate coup of colossal proportions to augment his MAGA legacy. But, as NATO’s chief power, the problematic nature of the Trump administration’s vague threats to secure Greenland by any means is self-evident. Several European politicians, including German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, have been very vocal in warning against such a violation of international law. For one, NATO could face an internal rift should the USA come to blows with Denmark, which would severely hamper its efforts to curtail and end the Russian war in Ukraine. Perhaps more worryingly, a forceful taking of Greenland would enable Putin’s war by undermining the West’s anti-invasion rhetoric. If the US infringes on what is currently sovereign Danish territory, then Russia would no longer be an exception, and the so-called Western alliance would find itself in turmoil.
Vice President JD Vance has recently downplayed any militaristic hints in Trump’s words, whilst Trump himself spoke at length with Frederiksen on the best way to peacefully co-operate on the Greenland question. Any economic relationship would be Greenland’s choice, she reiterated. Yet, after Trump cancelled a visit to Denmark in 2019 on similar grounds, relations with Denmark can be expected to remain icy.
One way Denmark could be forced into concessions is through a tariff war, with Trump having threatened a 10% tariff on all US imports as part of his ‘America First’ ideology. Collective European growth would be hampered as a result, whilst on the reverse side, the US would find itself struggling to access the healthcare sector lynchpin that is the Danish pharmaceutical industry. US insulin is largely sourced from Denmark, as well as the diabetes drug Ozempic, produced by Danish company Novo Nordisk. Trade wars in the ambit of Greenland would thus not find favour with many US citizens, even if a subsequent economic relationship might further American prestige.
In summary, the bleak prospect of military invasion is unlikely given the less catastrophic alternatives for a Trump administration seeking to financially draw in Greenland. This decision, however, rests with the Greenlandic people, whose local authorities, Greenlandic MP Kuno Fencker told the BBC, would likely welcome “constructive dialogue and mutually beneficial partnership with the United States and other nations”.
It remains to be seen whether the Greenlandic economy can be reined in completely by the MAGA cause. The touchdown of Donald Trump Jr. on a “personal day trip” already alludes to a welcoming response by some pro-Trump Greenlanders, whilst the Republicans have already introduced a bill calling for a ‘Make Greenland Great Again Act’ – this would begin negotiations with a hesitant Denmark on day one of the second Trump administration. What is certain is that the semi-autonomous region is grasping to cling onto its chances for full autonomy and is now internationally vulnerable at precisely the moment it was moving towards total independence. Trump’s unbounded ambition in the realm of economic land grabs – further evidenced by his recent statements on Canada, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Panama Canal – looks set to define the start of his second term in office, in what will surely be a dramatic few years for the USA, Greenland, and the watching world.
The views and opinions expressed in this article belong solely to the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Warwick Economics Summit.
References are included in the text as hyperlinks.
Comments