Trump's Greenland Gambit: From Threats to Deals in Arctic Power Play

$13.7 billion. That's how much Denmark just committed to Arctic security—weeks after Trump threatened to seize Greenland "the hard way." Now the former president claims he and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte have agreed on a "framework for future negotiations" over the island.

From Saber-Rattling to Dealmaking

Last week's announcement marks a dramatic tactical shift for Trump. In early January, he'd openly mused about military force to "take control" of Greenland, fresh off ordering the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. He threatened "massive tariffs" on European countries that might resist his takeover, publicly humiliated European leaders by releasing their private messages, and posted AI-generated images of himself planting American flags on Greenlandic soil.

But after what Trump described as "satisfactory" talks with Rutte at Davos, military seizure is apparently off the table and tariff threats are on pause. What changed Trump's approach from coercion to cooperation?

The answer lies in both strategic necessity and political reality. Recent polling shows only 6% of Greenlanders want to become part of the United States, while surveys from YouGov and Ipsos reveal minimal American support for military action. Trump, an avid poll-watcher, needed a face-saving pivot.

The Arctic's Strategic Goldmine

Greenland isn't just ice and snow—it's a geopolitical prize that's only growing in value. The island anchors the northern boundary of the Greenland-Iceland-UK (GIUK) Gap, the critical maritime chokepoint that Russian ships must navigate to reach the Atlantic. During both world wars, Allied control of this passage proved decisive against German naval power.

Today's competition is about more than military positioning. Greenland contains 43 of the 50 minerals that the U.S. Department of Energy classified as critical in its 2023 assessment, including cobalt, lithium, and rare earth elements essential for semiconductors, renewable energy, and drone production. As supply chain resilience becomes a national security priority, these resources are increasingly valuable.

The island's strategic importance hasn't gone unnoticed. Biden's 2024 Arctic Strategy reaffirmed the GIUK Gap's centrality to U.S. national security, while China and Russia have both attempted to establish footholds in the region.

The Cooperation That Already Exists

Despite Trump's inflammatory rhetoric, U.S.-Denmark-Greenland cooperation has been quietly deepening for years. The U.S. reopened its Greenland consulate in 2020 after a 67-year closure and awarded long-term maintenance contracts for Pituffik Space Base to Greenlandic companies.

Joint geological surveys by American, Danish, and Greenlandic teams have mapped extensive lithium, cobalt, and rare earth deposits. Meanwhile, both Washington and Copenhagen have successfully blocked Chinese expansion attempts. When Chinese companies and research institutions tried to establish a presence in 2022, they were diplomatically discouraged. As recently as May 2025, Greenland's mineral resources minister stated flatly that the territory has "no interest" in cooperation agreements with China.

Denmark passed investment screening legislation in 2021 to prevent foreign acquisitions that threaten national security, and Greenland is preparing similar measures. The foundation for deeper cooperation already exists—it just needs the right framework.

What's Really at Stake

For the United States, Greenland represents both defensive necessity and offensive opportunity. Controlling the GIUK Gap becomes more critical as great power competition intensifies, while access to critical minerals could reduce dangerous dependence on Chinese supply chains.

For Greenland's 56,000 residents, the calculation is different. They need economic development—mining, tourism, and fishing opportunities that can support a sustainable future. Many favor eventual independence from Denmark, but on their own terms, not as an American territory.

Denmark finds itself in the middle, balancing its NATO commitments with its constitutional relationship with Greenland. Copenhagen's massive Arctic security investment signals recognition that European security ultimately depends on American deterrence, but also that Denmark won't be pushed around.

The Real Test Ahead

Any successful deal must respect what Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen calls her red line: Greenland's sovereignty is not for sale. But there's room for creative arrangements that give Washington what it needs—enhanced military access, mining partnerships, and strategic influence—while preserving Greenlandic autonomy and Danish dignity.

The key is institutional permanence. Unlike Trump's previous deals that could be easily reversed, a Greenland arrangement needs Congressional backing and legal frameworks that outlast any single administration. It must also include concrete benefits for Greenlandic workers and communities, not just strategic advantages for Washington.

China and Russia are watching closely. Beijing's Belt and Road Initiative has been effectively blocked in Greenland, but that doesn't mean Chinese interest has disappeared. Moscow, meanwhile, sees any expanded American presence as a direct threat to its Arctic ambitions.