Online Reporter
Yang Yiran
DENMARK Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said a “fundamental disagreement” exists with the US over Greenland, after high-stakes talks between Danish, Greenlandic and US officials on Wednesday.
Following the meeting, US President Donald Trump reiterated that the US needs Greenland and that Denmark cannot be relied upon to protect the island, adding that he anticipated “something will work out.”
Why does the US want Greenland?
The US has recently made a series of moves threatening the annexation of Greenland, a self-governing Danish territory within NATO. Trump raised a range of possible tacks to that end, from making financial offers to possibly “utilising the US military.”
The recent moves are not Trump’s first attempt to assert control over Greenland. During his first term, he openly floated the idea of purchasing the island, calling it “essentially a large real estate deal.” The idea echoes a long-standing pattern of US interest in the territory that dates back to 1867.
The United States’ enduring interest in Greenland, manifesting as persistent intent under the current administration, raises the question: what makes the island so strategically important, and why is Washington revisiting it with urgency?
According to a briefing by the European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), Greenland is strategically valuable for two primary reasons.
First, Greenland lies within the Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom (GIUK) gap, a critical maritime corridor in the North Atlantic that connects the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans, as well as North America and Europe.
Control of this passage enables NATO to monitor and manage maritime traffic, safeguard vital sea lanes and track underwater and subsurface threats.
Second, Greenland holds vast deposits of natural resources, particularly rare earth elements (REEs), which are crucial for both everyday technologies and US military hardware. For example, a single F-35 Fighter jet uses over 400 kilograms of REEs, according to an article published on the US Department of War website.
In Washington, concerns over the vulnerability of US REE supply chains have increasingly moved to the forefront of discourse, likely driving the recent US moves regarding Greenland. Additionally, melting Arctic and Greenland ice caps are opening up access to resources and new shipping routes, which further heightens the island’s strategic value.
The return of US supremacy
Trump’s determination to acquire Greenland is viewed as a reflection of his administration’s “US supremacy” doctrine in foreign policy.
The doctrine was formalised in the “America First Policy Directive” to the Secretary of State, issued on January 20, 2025, which orders that “from this day forward, the foreign policy of the United States shall champion core American interests and always put America and American citizens first.”
The 2025 National Security Strategy published by the White House makes it clear that it will “assert and enforce a ‘Trump Corollary’ to the Monroe Doctrine,” signalling a push to achieve a “potent restoration of American power and priorities,” as well as the fortification of its dominance in the Western Hemisphere.
Since his inauguration, this doctrine of US supremacy has been singularly reasserted. In his inaugural speech, he vowed to “take back” the Panama Canal, one of the world’s most critical chokepoints. He also teased the idea of Canada becoming the “51st state” — a notion analysts attribute to desire for Canada’s mineral resources.
Notably, Trump’s foreign policy does not spare his European allies. In 2025, US applied a broad 15 percent tariff to EU goods, with few exemptions. To avoid a proposed 30 percent tariff, the EU agreed to a series of concessions: eliminating tariffs on all US industrial goods, procuring $750 billion in US energy exports by 2028, investing $600 billion in strategic US sectors and purchasing $40 billion in US AI chips while increasing defense spending on US military equipment.
What does ‘America First’ mean to allies?
The doctrine of US supremacy and Washington’s recent moves to acquire Greenland by whatever means necessary have set off alarm bells within NATO.
NATO’s most fundamental principle, the principle of collective self-defense, enshrined in Article 5, stipulates that an armed attack against one member of the alliance is considered an attack against all. However, this principle is designed for external aggressors, rather than internal threats.
“If the United States decides to attack another NATO country, then everything would stop – that includes NATO and therefore post-World War II security,” Frederiksen said.
When asked whether his recent moves would undermine NATO integrity, Trump said: “If it affects NATO and it affects NATO, but you know, they need us much more than we need them,” emphasising his view of an imbalanced NATO-US relationship.
The already strained NATO alliance now faces a more pressing challenge from Trump’s recent threat to go the “hard way” if a deal to purchase Greenland cannot be made the “easy way.”
“Should the darkest hour come and the United States uses military force to annex Greenland, the essence of Article 5 and collective defense within NATO would lose its meaning,” Anna Wieslander, Northern Europe director for the Atlantic Council said.
The transatlantic relationship has evidently descended into rancour, mistrust and even hostility towards the US since Trump’s return to the White House. Research by the Brussels Institute for Geopolitics shows that only 29 percent of the European public expressed a positive view of the US in March 2025, marking an 18-point drop from October 2024.
“For Europeans, the US is now a predatory regime,” wrote Mujtaba Rahman, the managing director for Europe at Eurasia Group, who contributes to Time magazine. “The annexation of Greenland would shatter the illusion that America remains a friend.”
In a marked escalation of tensions, France, Germany, Sweden and Norway have announced on Wednesday the deployment of troops to Greenland as part of a European security mission.
