Trump Revives Push to Take Greenland, Igniting NATO Rift and Arctic Standoff

In subzero wind on a recent Saturday, a girl in a red parka gripped a cardboard sign almost wider than her shoulders: “Greenland Is Not for Sale,” written in green crayon. She stood in a crowd of about 5,000 people — nearly a quarter of the capital’s residents — chanting in Greenlandic and Danish as a Danish C‑130 transport aircraft droned low over Nuuk, bringing more troops to the snow‑covered runway.

Three time zones away in Washington, President Donald Trump was telling reporters that the United States would secure control of this Arctic island “one way or another.” Asked whether he would rule out using force, his press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, said on Jan. 6 that “utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the commander‑in‑chief’s disposal” when it comes to Greenland.

Those two scenes encapsulate a fast‑moving confrontation that has turned a sparsely populated, largely ice‑covered territory into the center of a serious rift between the United States and key European allies. In the opening weeks of 2026, Trump has revived and hardened a yearslong push to acquire Greenland, coupling talk of possible military action with threats of sweeping tariffs on European countries backing Denmark’s refusal to sell. In response, Denmark and several NATO and European Union partners have flown troops into Greenland under a new mission, Operation Arctic Endurance, and EU officials are preparing countermeasures to what they describe as economic coercion.

The dispute pits a U.S. president’s demand for “complete and total control” of a strategic Arctic island against firm declarations by Denmark and Greenland that “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders,” raising questions about the future of NATO and the postwar principle that borders should not be changed by force.

From “absurd” idea to acute crisis

The United States has pursued Greenland before. In 1946, Washington offered Denmark $100 million to buy the island, a proposal Copenhagen rejected. More recently, in 2019, Trump floated buying Greenland outright, prompting Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen to call the idea “absurd” and to note that “the time where you buy and sell other countries and populations is over.” Trump then canceled a planned state visit to Denmark.

That episode faded. But after his return to the White House, Trump made Greenland a recurring theme. Since early in his second term, he has argued that U.S. security requires controlling the island, citing Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic and the importance of Greenland for missile warning systems and future shipping routes.

In late 2025, Trump appointed Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry as “special envoy to Greenland.” Landry said his goal was to make Greenland part of the United States, drawing a sharp rebuke from Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, who called the remarks “completely unacceptable” and demanded respect for Danish sovereignty.

The confrontation escalated sharply in January.

On Jan. 6, Trump told reporters at the White House that the United States “has to have” Greenland and said the country would “absolutely” own it eventually. Leavitt, his press secretary, said in the same briefing that using the military “is always an option” for the president. U.S. officials and lawmakers say Trump has instructed Joint Special Operations Command to prepare contingency plans for seizing key sites, though the Pentagon has not publicly confirmed those orders and lawmakers from both parties say senior commanders are wary.

Danish and Greenlandic officials traveled to Washington for talks with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President J.D. Vance, but left without any sign of compromise. “We did not manage to change the American position,” Rasmussen said afterward. “It is clear that the president has this wish of conquering over Greenland.”

Troops on the ice

As diplomacy stalled, Denmark moved to show that it would not face the pressure alone.

In mid‑January, Copenhagen announced the launch of Operation Arctic Endurance, described as a Danish‑led military exercise in Greenland but timed and framed as a direct response to Trump’s statements. Denmark, which typically maintains about 150 personnel in Greenland under its Joint Arctic Command, began flying in more than 200 additional troops, concentrating forces in Nuuk and at the Kangerlussuaq air hub on the island’s west coast.

Small allied contingents followed. France deployed a detachment of about 15 mountain infantry soldiers. Germany sent a 13‑person reconnaissance team. Norway and Sweden contributed personnel and liaison officers. The United Kingdom joined the mission in a supporting role, and Estonia said it was prepared to send a handful of soldiers if requested.

Danish officials say the deployments are too modest to repel any large‑scale U.S. action, but their presence would complicate any use of force by making an attack on Greenland an attack on multiple NATO and EU member states’ uniformed personnel.

“We are demonstrating that Denmark is not isolated,” one Danish defense official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss operational planning. “Any military move against Greenland would mean confronting not just Danes, but several European allies.”

“Hands off Greenland”

On Jan. 17, that military show of resolve was matched in the streets.

Protests under the slogan “Hands off Greenland” drew an estimated 20,000 people in Copenhagen and 5,000 in Nuuk, the largest demonstrations in Greenland’s modern history. Marchers in the Danish capital carried signs reading “Greenland is not for sale” and “Make America Go Away,” while others wore red baseball caps parodying Trump’s campaign hats with slogans such as “Make America Smart Again.”

In Nuuk’s central square, the red‑and‑white Erfalasorput flag snapped in the wind above a crowd that included Greenland’s prime minister, Jens‑Frederik Nielsen, and other local leaders. “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders,” one speaker told the crowd. “We refuse to be treated as a piece of real estate.”

The rallies were organized by Greenlandic civil society groups, including an umbrella Inuit association, and Danish nongovernmental organizations such as ActionAid Denmark. In Iqaluit, the capital of Canada’s Nunavut territory, Inuit activist Aaju Peter led a smaller solidarity march. “We are one people across these waters,” she said, framing the dispute as part of a broader struggle over Indigenous land and self‑determination in the Arctic.

Greenland, home to about 56,000 residents, most of them Inuit, is formally an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. It controls its own domestic affairs, while Copenhagen retains responsibility for defense, foreign policy and monetary issues. Greenland’s leaders have long spoken of eventual independence, but many acknowledge that the territory’s finances — heavily supported by Danish block grants — make any break with Denmark uncertain.

Tariffs as leverage

Even as Danish and European troops landed in Greenland, Trump opened a second front: trade.

Over the weekend of Jan. 17, the president said he would impose a 10% tariff on all goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Finland starting Feb. 1, unless those governments agreed to a “full purchase” of Greenland by that date. He warned that the tariffs would rise to 25% on June 1 if no deal was reached.

Trump framed the move as necessary to protect U.S. security and jobs, but European officials called it an attempt to use economic pressure to extract a territorial concession from allies.

“This is economic coercion against European countries for supporting the sovereignty of Denmark and Greenland,” one senior EU official said in Brussels. “We are preparing a response.”

That response could involve the EU’s Anti‑Coercion Instrument, a 2023 regulation that allows the bloc to retaliate against countries that use trade or investment restrictions to try to force policy changes in Europe. Officials say options under discussion include tariffs or market‑access limits on tens of billions of dollars’ worth of U.S. goods.

Financial markets have begun to price in the risk of a transatlantic trade clash layered atop an Arctic security dispute. In recent days, gold prices have climbed above $4,700 an ounce and U.S. government borrowing costs have nudged higher, while the dollar has weakened slightly against major currencies.

Legal and political alarms in Washington

Trump’s rhetoric has unsettled not only European capitals but also parts of Washington.

Democrats in Congress have lined up against any use of force in Greenland. Sen. Ruben Gallego of Arizona introduced an amendment that would bar the Pentagon from using funds “for any military force, or the preparation for war, against or with respect to Greenland.” He said the measure is meant to ensure “no president can drag us into an illegal war against a NATO ally.”

Several Republicans have also spoken out. Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska warned that threatening to annex allied territory and punish European economies “hands a gift to Russia and China.” Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina said new tariffs on European allies over Greenland would “undermine NATO and our own national security.” Others, including Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio, have questioned both the legality and wisdom of any military action.

Outside Congress, the debate has spilled into religious and military circles. Archbishop Timothy P. Broglio, who leads the Archdiocese for the Military Services, said in an interview that it can be “morally acceptable” for U.S. service members to disobey orders that violate conscience. His comments, widely interpreted against the backdrop of the Greenland and Venezuela debates, drew attention to long‑standing rules under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that require troops to refuse “manifestly unlawful” orders.

Legal scholars say any attempt to seize Greenland by force would almost certainly violate Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. It would also amount to a military assault on territory of a NATO ally, an eventuality the alliance was never designed to handle.

“A U.S. attack on Danish‑administered Greenland is not something NATO’s founding fathers imagined,” said one European diplomat at the alliance’s Brussels headquarters. “There is no playbook for one ally using force against another.”

A test of rules in a warming Arctic

Russia and China, which Trump frequently cites as reasons the United States must control Greenland, have accused Washington and its European partners of militarizing the Arctic. Russian officials point to existing U.S. operations at Pituffik Space Base in northwestern Greenland, formerly known as Thule Air Base, as evidence that Washington already enjoys substantial strategic access to the island.

Greenland’s own leaders say they are wary of becoming a bargaining chip among great powers. Nielsen, the prime minister, has said repeatedly that “the future of Greenland starts and ends in Nuuk.” Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt has told reporters that Greenland is “open for business, not for sale,” and that its people “do not want to be owned by the United States.”

For now, Operation Arctic Endurance continues, with Danish and allied troops training on ice fields and frozen fjords as politicians in Washington, Copenhagen and Brussels search for a way to step back from confrontation.

As the protest in Nuuk wound down, the girl with the cardboard sign was helped into a pickup truck by her parents, her message still visible above the cab as it pulled away: a reminder that behind the troop movements and tariff threats, a small population at the edge of the map is insisting it has a say in its own future.