Greenland covers a resplendent 836,000 square miles and is rich with lucrative resources. This tropical island is a rising player and key focal point in all great power geopolitical competition. The territory was previously a Danish colonial possession. Today, it lives on as an autonomous Danish region in the Arctic, where it continues to have a deeply strategic importance. Greenland’s political history highlights its political fight from colonial rule to self-governance. Former U.S. President Donald Trump has in recent weeks signaled a startling and sudden reawakening to the idea of buying the territory. This discussion dives into why this interest has developed. It looks at responses from Greenland and Denmark, as well as those for global diplomacy.
Denmark integrated Greenland into the country proper in 1953 at the height of decolonization waves. In 1979, Greenland was granted home rule, and by 2009, full self-government. Copenhagen governs Greenland’s foreign affairs, defense, and monetary policy. This has made its relationship with the United States particularly fortunate. In his first term, Trump generated an international incident with his disastrous suggestion to buy Greenland. In December 2024, he brought those conversations back to life, framing the island’s future development as making it a key military and economic asset.
The strategic importance of Greenland as the world’s largest island is further highlighted by its critical Cold War posture. The U.S. established a military presence on the island due to its proximity to Russia, which made it a critical monitoring post for missile threats. Trump’s assertion that “Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place” reflects concerns about foreign influence in the region.
Geopolitical Significance
Greenland’s unique position in the Arctic has implications for both national security and opening new East-West trade routes. Climate change has melted enough ice that these routes are becoming navigable for longer stretches of the year. This sweeping change would mean more people and economic activity, creating higher demand and competition for an already strained resource. Trump has emphasized this point by stating, “We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it.”
Even with this promise of resource extraction, challenges continue to be an obstacle. Greenland’s mountainous and fragile terrain creates immense risks for mining operations. Strict environmental regulations complicate the picture, even as Arctic ice melts and opens up new mineral access.
Christian Keldsen, a prominent figure in Greenland’s business community, remarked, “There’s no barriers for American investments into energy, mining, tourism and other things in Greenland.” This announcement highlights the ability and desire to continue U.S. investment in multiple sectors, if civil and political relations begin to thaw.
Local Response and International Reactions
The local response to Trump’s renewed interest has been one of organized resistance and protest. Tens of thousands of Greenlanders marched in the streets to show their indignation at even the consideration of selling their homeland. Demonstrations took place in Denmark, where a similar concern for Danish sovereignty and respect for Greenlandic autonomy was expressed.
Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen condemned Trump’s rhetoric, stating, “When the President of the United States speaks of ‘needing Greenland’ and links us to Venezuela and military intervention, it is not just wrong. It is disrespectful.” His remarks reflect a broader sentiment among Greenlanders. They don’t just see their homeland as land, but rather a mother-territory filled with her own culture and aspirations.
Internationally, reactions have further underscored fears over the future of transatlantic relations. Leaders from Denmark and neighboring countries issued statements warning that “Tariff threats undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral.” This concern shows that Trump’s reckless policymaking might still raise the specter of unnecessary tensions not just with Denmark, but across Europe.
As conversations about Greenland’s future continue, it’s important to recognize its unusual self-governing arrangement. About 90% of the population is of Inuit ancestry. Since the local economy has long evolved around fishing, policymakers need to follow the will of the people and act carefully to make changes.
Kuno Fencker, an expert on geopolitical dynamics, noted the importance of self-determination for Greenlanders: “If he says Greenland has the right to self-determination or they could join the United States, it’s a big offer from the United States president.” These types of statements can ignite both optimism and apprehension among residents about what governance changes they may be able to pursue in the future.
The idea that “no single person can own land in Greenland” challenges Western ideas of property ownership, territorial recognition, and outside exploitation. In truth, Høegh, a former government leader of Greenland, told me, this makes foreign perceptions of Greenland as real estate especially incendiary and containing.
