Although the relationship between the United States (US) and Greenland remained within a relatively stable and alliance-oriented framework within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) security architecture during the post-Cold War period, developments at the end of 2025 and the beginning of 2026 demonstrate that this perception has shifted dramatically. Due to its geographical location, Greenland is regarded as a point of strategic dominance for the North Atlantic defense corridor, particularly in terms of monitoring Russian and Chinese maritime presence. Consequently, Greenland’s significance has been consistently emphasized in Washington’s security discourse regarding the North Atlantic and the Arctic regions.[i] In a global environment where geopolitical competition is rising once again, this discourse has opened the door to a new crisis by clashing with norms of sovereignty and alliance.
Donald Trump’s repeated assertions during the 2025-2026 period that “Greenland is a security necessity for the US,” coupled with the linking of the island’s control to Washington’s national interests, have caused significant tension along the Denmark-US line. The Trump administration has emphasized the strategic importance of these lands, asserting that Greenland is indispensable for the positioning of military bases and the deployment of ballistic missile early warning systems.[ii] Trump has recently reiterated this demand, using expressions such as “the US must own Greenland,” and has once again put forward these claims with a harsh tone.[iii]
This stance points not only to the geographical significance of the region in question but also to a broader intent regarding the Arctic policies of the US within the context of the global power balance. This strategic discourse also contains dimensions that directly contradict the sovereignty of Greenland and its place within the alliance. Greenland is an autonomous territory under the Kingdom of Denmark and an alliance partner within NATO; therefore, norms based on sovereignty and international law hold central importance within the alliance. The discourse and actions of countries within a military alliance concerning the territorial integrity of their allies are already protected under the treaties to which they are subject. States under the umbrella of an internationally recognized military organization such as NATO, in particular, are expected to comply with the relevant treaty texts. Articles 4 and 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty address territorial integrity, political independence, security threats, and the stance to be taken in the event of a potential attack.[iv]
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has explicitly stated that the US stance toward the acquisition of Greenland would signify the end of NATO; this indicates that traditional alliance ties have become severely strained.[v] This warning underscores that the lack of trust within the alliance is not merely a regional issue but rather represents a test of the cornerstones of the international security architecture. Greenland’s local leadership has similarly resorted to strong rhetoric. Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen took a clear stand against Trump’s statements, expressing that such pressures and “annexation fantasies” are unacceptable. Through his remarks, Nielsen emphasizes Greenland’s sovereign rights and the binding nature of international law, while defending the protection of the regional population’s right to self-determination. This tension moves in a direction quite different from the alliance-centered North Atlantic policies pursued throughout the Biden era. Historically, the military presence of the US in the North Atlantic region has been shaped by inter-ally coordination within the framework of NATO, with bases deployed in the Arctic region through the consent of allies, including Denmark.[vi] However, the advisor appointments announced by Trump in 2025 and the decision to send a special envoy to Greenland have demonstrated an intent to step outside of this framework. The appointment of Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as a special envoy is a new sign that Washington is exhibiting comprehensive strategic interest toward Greenland.[vii]
The fact that European leaders argue that Greenland’s fate should be determined solely by Denmark and Greenland reflects the tension between sovereignty and alliance belonging. In a situation where an alliance exists, the opening of sovereignty to debate and the necessity of defending this situation through rhetoric already reveals an imbalance within the alliance. These statements by the US are not merely a demand for ownership of an island; they are a reflection of the global power struggle in the Arctic, which also involves Russia and China. The Arctic is viewed as one of the future economic and strategic centers in terms of both energy resources and sea routes, and for this reason, it is becoming a stage for great power competition. Washington’s definition of Greenland as a security and geopolitical hub is a strategy that prioritizes the control of maritime corridors and power projection in this region.
In conclusion, the ongoing tension in US-Greenland relations can be evaluated not just as an issue between two countries, but as a concrete representation of the collision between international law, sovereignty, alliance dynamics, the sustainability of international organizations, and global power balances. The debates regarding the future of Greenland will take their place in literature as a subject of political crisis that deepens the trust issue within NATO, questions the boundaries of state sovereignty, and reshape the dynamics of global hegemony.
[i] “Greenland: why does Trump want US control of Arctic island?”, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/why-does-trump-want-greenland-could-he-get-it-2025-01-08/, (Access Date: 06.01.2025).
[ii] ibid.
[iii] “Denmark’s prime minister says Trump is serious about wanting Greenland takeover”, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/denmarks-prime-minister-says-trump-is-serious-about-wanting-greenland-takeover-2026-01-05/, (Access Date: 06.01.2025).
[iv] “The North Atlantic Treaty”, NATO, https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/1949/04/04/the-north-atlantic-treaty, (Access Date: 06.01.2025).
[v] “Danish prime minister says a US takeover of Greenland would mark the end of NATO”, AP News, https://apnews.com/article/denmark-greenland-trump-2b12bb104faaaafda2ed270febfb0522, (Access Date: 06.01.2025).
[vi] ibid.
[vii] “Trump says US ‘has to have’ Greenland after naming special envoy”, BBC, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgmd132ge4o, (Access Date: 06.01.2025).
