The White House has said the use of the US military remains an option as President Donald Trump renews his push to bring Greenland under American control, arguing that the vast Arctic island is critical to US national security.
Trump first floated the idea of purchasing Greenland during his initial term in office, but the proposal has returned to the spotlight following a recent US military operation overseas and growing concern in Washington over Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic.
Trump Frames Greenland as a Security Priority
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said President Trump sees control of Greenland as vital to defending US interests in the Arctic region.
“President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States,” Leavitt said, adding that the administration is reviewing “a range of options” to achieve that goal. She noted that the use of the US military is “always an option at the commander in chief’s disposal.”
Her remarks stood out because other senior figures in Trump’s orbit have tried to play down the idea of military action. Trump’s newly appointed special envoy to Greenland, Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, and White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller have both suggested force would not be necessary. Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson also said he did not believe military action would be appropriate.
Europe and Canada Push Back
The White House comments drew swift reaction from Europe. Leaders from France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom joined Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen in reaffirming that Greenland belongs to its people.
“Greenland belongs to its people,” the joint statement said, stressing that only Denmark and Greenland can decide the island’s future. Greenland is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark and part of the NATO alliance.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney also voiced support for Denmark and Greenland, announcing that Canada’s Governor General Mary Simon and Foreign Minister Anita Anand will visit the island early next month. Standing alongside Frederiksen in Paris, Carney said decisions about Greenland’s future rest solely with the people of Denmark and Greenland.
Despite the pushback, envoy Jeff Landry said he has little interest in negotiating with Danish or European officials. Instead, he wants to speak directly with Greenlanders, saying he is focused on improving quality of life on the island. Landry claimed he has already exchanged emails with residents and joked about bonding over shared interests like hunting and fishing.
Why Greenland Matters Strategically
Trump has argued that the United States needs Greenland to counter growing Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic, claiming the region is increasingly crowded with foreign military and commercial activity. Denmark, he has said, lacks the capacity to secure the island on its own.
Greenland’s location has long made it strategically important. Sitting off Canada’s northeastern coast, more than two-thirds of the island lies within the Arctic Circle, a position that has been central to North American defence since World War II.
The US operates the Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland under a 1951 defence agreement with Denmark. The base plays a key role in missile warning, missile defence and space surveillance for both the United States and NATO. Greenland also forms part of the GIUK Gap, a crucial corridor used by NATO to monitor Russian naval movements in the North Atlantic.
Beyond military considerations, Greenland is rich in rare earth minerals essential for modern technology, renewable energy systems and electric vehicle batteries. The US Geological Survey has also identified potential offshore oil and gas reserves, adding to the island’s economic and strategic appeal.
Denmark and Greenland’s leaders have firmly rejected Trump’s renewed calls for US control, warning that any attempt to seize the island would undermine NATO unity. Still, with Washington openly framing Greenland as a security priority, the debate over the Arctic island’s future appears far from settled.
