Would Trump really make a move on Greenland?

In fact, the US has coveted Greenland for a long time, with roots tracing back to the 19th century when the US was aggressively expanding its territory. As early as 1867, after purchasing Alaska from Russia for $720 billion, then-US Secretary of State William Seward began pushing plans to acquire Greenland and Iceland. He commissioned former Treasury Secretary Robert Walker to write a report emphasizing the island's "mineral potential and trade control value," but no formal proposal was made. The main reason was that the purchase of Alaska did not yield abundant mineral resources, making the American public unwilling to pay for territorial expansion. In 1910, the US ambassador to Denmark, Maurice Egan, proposed a "three-way land swap": exchanging the Mindanao region of the Philippines for Greenland and the Danish West Indies, which was met with a cold response from Denmark. However, in 1917, the US purchased the Danish West Indies (now the US Virgin Islands) for $25 million, temporarily shelving the Greenland plan. Therefore, whether it was Alaska or Greenland and Iceland, taking over these frigid territories was primarily driven by mineral resources and control over the Arctic Ocean routes.

During World War II and the Cold War, the US also pursued military infiltration and once again sought to buy Greenland. After the Nazis occupied Denmark, the US took over Greenland’s defense, building military bases and mining cryolite (a raw material for the aircraft industry). In 1946, the Truman administration secretly offered $100 million in gold to buy the island, but Denmark rejected the offer; instead, the US signed the Greenland Defense Agreement, gaining permission to retain the Thule Air Base. In 1951, the US and Denmark signed a defense treaty, officially establishing permanent US military presence at the Thule base, which became the core of North America’s missile warning system. In 1968, the crash of a US B-52 bomber caused a nuclear contamination incident, revealing the US’s long-standing military presence in Greenland.

The origin of Denmark's sovereignty over Greenland dates back to colonial rule during the Kalmar Union in 1380 and was later assigned to Denmark in the 1814 Treaty of Kiel. However, in 1979, Greenland gained internal autonomy, with Denmark retaining only jurisdiction over foreign affairs and defense. A 2008 referendum, with 76% support, expanded autonomy rather than independence, acknowledging Denmark's sovereignty framework, and in 2009, autonomy was upgraded, transferring judicial, policing, and resource extraction rights to the Greenland government, while Denmark symbolically retained constitutional sovereignty. Under current laws, Greenland has its own parliament and administrative institutions, allowing it to independently formulate economic policies related to mining and fisheries. The UN Declaration on Decolonization grants Greenland the right to self-determination, and any forcible intervention by Denmark would violate international norms. Thus, Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland is based on historical governance continuity, international legal recognition, and gradual autonomy compromise. However, it is precisely Greenland’s high degree of autonomy that provides an opportunity for the US to intervene.

Trump's idea of acquiring Greenland isn’t something new this year. As early as his first term in 2019, he brought up the idea among Danish and Greenlandic politicians. Then-Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen publicly called his suggestion a “ridiculous discussion.” Following that, the impulsive Trump abruptly canceled his state visit to Denmark. In June 2020, hoping to mend relations with the US, Denmark saw Trump conveniently reopen the US consulate in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, which had been closed since 1953.

Apart from Greenland, Trump also attempted to gain dual control over the Panama Canal through military and economic means. He promoted the 'North American Integration' plan and repeatedly claimed sovereignty over Canada, attempting to annex it as the "51st state" of the United States, while controlling Mexico to form a closed geopolitical bloc. He aimed to rename the "Gulf of Mexico" as the "American Gulf," in an effort to seize the region's rich oil resources. Not long ago, he launched a surprise operation on Venezuela, with Colombia, Cuba, and other countries also within his sphere of interference. Trump’s core motivation lies in monopolizing resources by controlling Greenland's rare earths (accounting for 25%-33% globally), the revenue from the Panama Canal (US$4.9 billion annually), and North American oil and gas. By controlling the Arctic shipping route (shortening the Asia-Europe route by 6,000 kilometers) and the Panama Canal, he seeks to constrain Sino-Russian trade and enforce shipping hegemony. Through territorial expansion, Trump aims to shape the image of a "great president" to divert domestic conflicts. Trump’s territorial ambitions are not isolated actions but rather a mix of resource plundering, strategic encirclement, political opportunism, and historical vanity. The core logic is that 'North American integration' and 'Arctic control' offset global influence decline, albeit at the cost of trampling international order, which instead accelerates the collapse of America’s moral authority.

Method one: Military occupation.According to 2025 data, Denmark and its autonomous government forces total only 500-550 personnel, with significant equipment disadvantages. Their operational databases rely on U.S. military authorization, which can easily be cut off. They have only five frigates and lack professional icebreakers, with only four NASAMS short-range systems covering just the capital. The European multi-national joint deployment initiated in January 2026 is laughable, consisting of only 37 people (with all 15 German troops already withdrawn by January 18). By 2025, the total number of U.S. troops stationed in Greenland had increased to around 800, nearly six times more than before, with the deployment of the AN/FPS-132 intercontinental missile early warning radar. They possess a deep-space runway and deep-water port capable of handling B-52, B-1B strategic bombers, and F-35 fighter jets (tested and deployed by 2025), as well as the E-6B "Doomsday Plane" added in 2025 (nuclear war command aircraft), enhancing strategic deterrence. Therefore, if conflict arises, the U.S. military could likely resolve the battle quickly.

Method two: Economic sanctions.Starting from January 2026, the U.S. imposed targeted tariffs on eight European countries supporting Greenland (Denmark, Germany, France, etc.). Phase one (starting February): A 10% tariff impacting German machinery (28% of export value) and French luxury goods. Phase two (starting June): A 25% tariff forcing EU countries to weigh trade losses against their sovereignty stance. Simultaneously, using the model of the 'Compact of Free Association,' the U.S. lured Greenland, promising access to the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, economic aid, and resource extraction rights, particularly for rare earths (Greenland accounts for 25%-33% of the global potential). Additionally, they fomented the "Danish exploitation theory" to encourage tendencies towards Greenlandic independence.

Method three: Political subversion.U.S. officials have discussed issuing one-time payments to Greenland residents as part of a plan to convince them to secede from Denmark and potentially join the United States. Although specific amounts and payment methods remain unclear, White House aides and other U.S. officials have discussed sums ranging from $10,000 to $100,000 per person. However, reportedly, 85% of the population opposes joining the United States.

Given the current situation, direct U.S. military action seems unlikely. Not long ago, the U.S. successfully removed Venezuela's president through a "decapitation strike." It’s possible a similar move could be made against Greenland’s leadership. Removing the leadership and installing a pro-American faction is entirely replicable. Regarding economic sanctions, tariff threats are Trump’s usual tactic, and Europe has been squeezed more than once, though European countries may impose counter-sanctions, as seen in April and July 2025. Lastly, anything money can achieve isn’t an issue; Greenland’s population is under 60,000. If the U.S. were to offer each resident $100,000, the cost would be relatively low.

The U.S. won't use any of these options alone. Comprehensive analysis shows armed occupation is high-risk and low-reward, possibly triggering global sanctions in violation of the UN Charter. Direct dialogue between the U.S. and Denmark to purchase Greenland is also unlikely, with Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen repeatedly emphasizing that Greenland is "not for sale" and requiring both a national referendum in Denmark and a vote in Greenland to pass. Cash buyouts are low-cost but insufficiently effective, as although 56% of Greenlanders support leaving Denmark, 85% oppose joining the U.S., so even a national referendum wouldn't fulfill U.S. objectives.The US may ultimately adopt a strategy of resource control and independent intervention to infiltrate Greenland.According to analysis by Deutsche Bank and international relations models, there is a 45% probability that Greenland will gain semi-independent status through the 'Free Association Agreement,' with the US controlling defense and foreign affairs. This could lead to the full Americanization of the rare earth supply chain and the transfer of Arctic shipping route toll rights. There is a 30% chance of long-term resource leasing, where the US would pay hundreds of billions in rent to monopolize mineral extraction for 50 years. Denmark would retain nominal sovereignty but lose actual economic control. The probability of armed occupation is only 15%, while a 'slow independence' model stands at 10%.

For China, the rupture of NATO relations is actually an opportunity. In 2026, China and the EU will initiate negotiations on a 'Digital Partnership Agreement' and jointly release a 'White Paper on Sustainable Development in the Arctic.' A poll by the European Council on Foreign Relations shows that 62% of EU citizens consider 'China as a necessary partner,' far exceeding the 16% for the US. Additionally, the EU has suspended temporary tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and shifted towards negotiating a 'Dynamic Tariff Adjustment Mechanism.' However, if the US gains control over Greenland, China's rare earth supply chain security will face significant threats. Greenland holds 25%-33% of the world’s rare earth reserves, with potential resources amounting to 38.5 million tons, of which heavy rare earths (dysprosium, terbium) account for over 30%. These are critical materials for chips, military equipment, and wind power. Under the threat of US sanctions, Greenland has already frozen Chinese-invested projects such as the Kvanefjeld iron ore mine and the Kringlerne rare earth mine. If the US takes control of these resources, China’s dominant position in the rare earth supply chain (which accounts for 60% globally) could weaken. The US might collaborate with Australia and Canada to form a 'Rare Earth Alliance,' potentially forcing China to accelerate the development of alternative technologies (such as ferrite permanent magnets) or seek resources from Africa and Southeast Asia. Furthermore, Greenland controls the Northwest Passage, reducing the distance between Asia and Europe by 6,000 kilometers. Once under US control, restrictions on Chinese merchant ships could increase logistics costs for the 'Ice Silk Road.' Should the US ally with NATO countries to establish exclusive navigation rules, it would diminish China’s influence in the Arctic Council.

Although gold prices have recently seen a pullback, escalating geopolitical risks will still push gold to higher levels. Funds may also flow into US Treasuries, but if the risk of NATO dissolution intensifies, the long-term credibility of the dollar could be damaged. Currency markets will also experience fragmentation, with the Swiss franc and yen potentially becoming safe-haven alternatives. As the US has already imposed tariff measures against eight European countries, the EU may retaliate with counter-tariffs against the US, accelerating the formation of a 'dual-track trade system.'

Oil prices may experience significant fluctuations as a result. If the Nordic shipping routes are obstructed, oil prices could rise, but the US might release Venezuelan oil supplies to suppress global oil prices.

Moreover, increased US attempts to control rare earth supply chains could heighten short-term concerns, potentially driving up rare earth prices and benefiting rare earth stocks. In the long term, this may encourage China to accelerate the development of alternative technologies like neodymium-iron-boron substitutes.

The above commentary was provided by Bian Shuyang (Z0012647), an analyst at the South China Research Institute. Opinions are for reference only and do not constitute any investment advice. The market carries risks; invest with caution.