COPENHAGEN, January 6, 2026 – Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen confirmed on Monday that President Donald Trump is dead serious about bringing Greenland under American control, telling Danish broadcaster DR, “Unfortunately, I think the American president should be taken seriously when he says he wants Greenland.” While Frederiksen and Greenland’s leadership quickly reiterated that the island is “not for sale” and does not wish to join the United States, Trump’s persistence is forcing the world to confront a question many would rather avoid: in an era of melting ice, rising great-power competition, and shifting Arctic power dynamics, does the United States actually need Greenland more than Denmark does?
Trump has never hidden his reasoning. The world’s largest island sits in a strategic sweet spot between North America and Europe, controls key Atlantic sea lanes, and is seeing its ice sheet retreat at an accelerating pace, opening up new shipping routes and vast deposits of rare-earth minerals critical for everything from electric vehicles to fighter jets. The U.S. already operates Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base) in northern Greenland – a cornerstone of missile warning and space surveillance. With Russian submarines and bombers probing farther into the Arctic and Chinese mining companies circling for deals, Trump argues that leaving such a vital chokepoint in the hands of a small NATO ally with limited defense resources is no longer sustainable.
From a realpolitik perspective, the president’s position is hard to dismiss. Denmark’s entire military budget is roughly the cost of two U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups. Greenland’s population is only 56,000 spread across an area larger than Mexico, and Copenhagen is over 2,000 miles away. Meanwhile, the Arctic is becoming the new global frontier, and the country that dominates it will dominate 21st-century trade and security. Trump’s critics call it imperialism; his supporters call it foresight not unlike Harry Truman’s decision to make Alaska and Hawaii states or Theodore Roosevelt’s acquisition of the Panama Canal Zone – moves that once seemed outrageous but are now seen as masterstrokes of strategic vision.
Frederiksen warned that any U.S. move against a NATO ally would “make everything stop,” invoking Article 5 protections. Yet Trump has repeatedly floated the idea of a voluntary purchase or a long-term security arrangement rather than outright conquest, pointing out that Greenlanders already rely heavily on Danish subsidies and might welcome a richer, closer partner if offered the right deal. Polls on the island remain firmly against joining the U.S. today, but economic realities and a younger generation more culturally tied to North America than Europe could shift that calculus over time.
Love him or hate him, Trump is doing what strong leaders have always done: looking at the map, seeing a vulnerability, and refusing to ignore it. History rarely rewards countries that wait politely while their strategic backyard is contested by adversaries. Whether through diplomacy, economic incentives, or – as a last resort – tougher measures, the 47th president clearly believes Greenland’s future is brighter, richer, and more secure as America’s 51st state than as a distant Danish territory in an increasingly dangerous Arctic.
For now, Denmark says no. But as the ice keeps melting and the world keeps changing, Trump’s once-ridiculed idea is starting to look less like a late-night tweet and more like the kind of hard-nosed strategic thinking America may one day thank him for.