Image Source: Getty
Over the recent weeks, the United States’ (US) President Donald Trump has expressed his imminent interest in purchasing Greenland, a self-governed island of Denmark. Trump has repeatedly stated that Greenland is critical for American national and economic security and, therefore, should be made a part of the US. This idea was met with scepticism from the Greenlanders, mainland Danes, and Europeans, who viewed it as expansionist and imperial, with the Danish Prime Minister (PM) Mette Frederiksen stating that her country is not for sale.
Map 1: A political map of the Arctic region
Source: The US Department of State
This article analyses the geoeconomic and strategic rationale of Trump’s Greenland bid for preserving and furthering US national and economic security and forecasts plausible scenarios for the future.
Strategic and geoeconomic rationale
In the initial days of Trump’s Greenland bid, the Europeans assumed that the idea of purchasing Greenland was nothing more than a pressure tactic at securing increasing access to the Arctic island’s mineral resources, and expanding US military operations in the critical region, where China and Russia have increased their naval activities—military or otherwise. However, since January 2025, after a call between the Danish PM Mette Frederiksen and President Trump, the Danes have been in crisis mode as President Trump made his administration’s views clear on the strategic necessity of the island being a part of the US.
The reasons for Trump’s interests in the Arctic can be assessed as related to security, great power calculations, and geoeconomics.
This is not the first time the US has endeavoured to purchase Greenland from Denmark. A closer look at US history delineates the precedent of purchasing foreign land amid geopolitical turmoil and upheaval. For instance, after its loss in the Crimean War, Russia sold Alaska to the US in 1867 for US$ 8.2 million; the US and Russia shared hostility towards the erstwhile British Empire—then a dominant naval power in the Indian and Pacific Oceans—whom Moscow and Washington wished to counter. This was Washington’s first foray into the Arctic. Since then, different US administrations have proposed purchasing Greenland in 1867, 1910, 1946, 1955, 2019, and finally, 2025.
Recently, the Arctic imperative has found increasing political support in Washington, especially after the 2022 Russian aggression in Ukraine. The reasons for Trump’s interests in the Arctic can be assessed as related to security, great power calculations, and geoeconomics.
Security rationale
As the Russian-Ukraine crisis gathered momentum, Finland and Sweden also joined the US-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), in 2023 and 2024, respectively, making all the Arctic members (except Russia) NATO members. Besides, Russia’s civilian and military nuclear facilities in the Arctic increased from 62 to 81 between 2021 and 2025 and are poised to cross 110 by 2035. These bases are host to nuclear-powered missiles, submarines, and other nuclear weapons—ranging from the Burevestnik missiles to the Poseidon torpedos. These bases are also testing grounds for Russian nuclear military equipment. Due to these developments, Moscow is the dominant military power in the Arctic.
Map 2: NATO and Russian military bases in the Arctic
Source: Statista Research
Russian territory includes over 50 percent of the Arctic coastline and has 22 military bases along the Arctic coast as opposed to NATO’s 20, of which 11 belong to Norway (see Map 2). Notably, Greenland hosts the Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base, a US military installation key to missile early warning and defence and space surveillance. Countering Russia’s military and nuclear expansion in the Arctic can be one of the security reasons for President Trump’s Greenland bid.
Geoeconomic security
Greenland is also strategically located along two potential shipping routes: the Northwest Passage and the Transpolar Sea Route. These routes are currently untraversable due to the treacherous terrain, weather, and ice. However, as commercial traffic in the Arctic Ocean increases, these routes will be important for global and regional trade.
Map 3: The Arctic Trade Routes
Source: The Arctic Institute
Greenland is strategically positioned to benefit from the comprehensive marine infrastructure required to operationalise and control these routes and assist in emergency management, prevention, and response in the Arctic. Today, 500 ships undertake multiple voyages in the Arctic annually, a 37-percent increase between 2013 and 2023.
Besides geostrategic location vis-à-vis shipping routes, Greenland's natural resources may have also piqued President Trump’s interest. Greenland’s rare-earth minerals (REMs) allows the US to reduce its reliance on China, which dominates the global critical minerals supply chains. Greenland possesses vast deposits of lithium, graphite, yttrium, and cobalt—all essential for manufacturing batteries, wind and solar technologies, and advanced military equipment. Greenland also possesses massive unexplored off-shore oil and gas reserves and abundant, undepleted fisheries, which weigh into the Trumpian calculations, as well.
Map 4: Greenland’s geology and resources
Source: The Greenland Gold Rush
Access to the Arctic routes and Greenland’s abundant natural resources can be pivotal to the US trade and economy and may constitute President Trump’s Greenlandic calculations.
Great power calculations
Additionally, China, which views itself as a ‘near-Arctic’ state, has increased military and economic cooperation in the Russian Arctic. Sino-Russian joint coastal guard and military exercises and investments along the Russian Arctic in logistics and energy infrastructure through the Polar Silk Road framework culminated in the establishment of a joint Russia-China Arctic sub-governance and cooperation mechanism to oversee all economic and political cooperation. Chinese investments in the Russian Arctic total US$ 90 billion, cementing the Russia-China econo-security partnership in the Arctic.
As the Trump-led Republican party now controls the US House of Representatives, the US Senate and the White House, legislating and executing a Greenland purchase is a surmountable task for the 47th President of the United States (POTUS).
It is plausible that the Greenland purchase is intended to form a bulwark of resistance against the Chinese and Russians in the Arctic. Domestic resistance is reduced by the current political situation in US legislation and executive bodies. As the Trump-led Republican party now controls the US House of Representatives, the US Senate and the White House, legislating and executing a Greenland purchase is a surmountable task for the 47th President of the United States (POTUS). In fact, on 14 January 2025, in the US House of Representatives, a Republican Representative from Tennessee, Andy Ogles, led several of his Republican colleagues in introducing the ‘Make Greenland Great Again (MGGA) Act’, which would direct the US Congress to support President Trump’s negotiations with Denmark in acquiring Greenland immediately. Following the approval of this Act, the POTUS can formally proceed to negotiate the Greenland purchase.Plausibility and scenarios
Among other plausible turnouts, four future scenarios seem likely. As President Trump has not ruled out economic and military force to annex Greenland as a US territory, there is the possibility that he will impose tariffs and sanctions on Denmark’s trade with the US. It is notable that Denmark is part of the European Economic Community (EEC) and that there will be a ripple effect of any potential US sanctions on Denmark. Main Danish exports to the US include pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and medical technologies. Another possibility, which seems highly unlikely yet plausible, is that Trump invades Greenland. Denmark is a NATO ally, and any military action by the US will damage the transatlantic alliance beyond repair, reaping benefits for China and Russia. The third plausibility is that President Trump simply loses interest in the Greenland bid and pauses after Denmark commits to meet the NATO obligations in the Arctic and upgrades the Greenlandic defence infrastructure to adequate standards. There is speculation that this is the latent aim behind President Trump’s Greenland bid. The last plausible scenario, which is a long-term one with many hiccups along the road, is that Greenland gains independence from Denmark and establishes closer ties with the US. Currently, Denmark provides US$ 600 million worth of subsidies to the Greenlanders, which is 50 percent of the Greenland government’s annual budget. Before gaining independence, Greenland needs to fix its economy.
The third plausibility is that President Trump simply loses interest in the Greenland bid and pauses after Denmark commits to meet the NATO obligations in the Arctic and upgrades the Greenlandic defence infrastructure to adequate standards.
Conclusion
2025 does not mark the first instance where Washington has proposed a Greenland purchase, thereby giving precedent to President Trump’s bid. Although his transatlantic allies ridicule this idea, Trump’s bid displays the growing geopolitical and economic importance of the Arctic region in global affairs.. Trump’s bid may be rooted in strategic, economic and great-power delineations; purchasing Greenland is still an uphill task. The idea’s feasibility depends on Danish resistance, US political will, and Greenland’s fiscal self-sufficiency. The Arctic’s future hinges on these unfolding dynamics.
Prithvi Gupta is a Junior Fellow with the Strategic Studies Programme at the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
