Tensions with Greenland rise: the United States is escalating conflict globally

By Alexander J. Schorr

January 8, 2026 (Washington, D.C.) — After repeated threats by Trump administration officials to invade Greenland by military force if necessary, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers the President hopes to purchase Greenland, not attack it. 

Rubio’s statement came after  Denmark’s Defense Ministry’s confirmation that its military is under a standing order to “shoot first and ask questions later” if any foreign force, including the United States, attempts to invade Greenland, which is owned by Denmark.

But other officials include Vice President  J.D. Vance continue to keep a military option on the table.

Denmark’s warning is rooted in a 1952 directive that remains in force, mandating Danish troops to “immediately take up the fight” against invaders without waiting for orders from high command. Originally created following the 1940 Nazi invasion of Denmark, the rule ensures that local military units defend territory even if central communications fail or commanders are unaware of a formal declaration of war.

Denmark ambassador, Jesper Møller Sørensen and Jacob Isbosethsen, Greenland’s chief representative to Washington, met this Thursday with White House National Security Council officials to discuss a new push by President Trump to annex Greenland. This is according to Danish government officials who were not authorized to comment publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Trump has maintained that he is serious about getting what he wants from Greenland: “I don’t need international law,” he said in an interview with The New York Times.

Why Possess it?

Trump has claimed that his push to acquire the island is for apparent national security reasons, with the White House confirming on January 7, 2026, that it is “actively discussing” options to acquire Greenland. The administration has stated that “utilizing the US military is always an option” for acquiring the territory, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said this week, NBC reports.

Greenland is critical for the defense of North America, hosting the Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base): it is a key node in the US missile early warning system and sits in the GUIK Gap, which is a strategic maritime passage for monitoring Russian naval movements.

The island of Greenland contains vast untapped reserves of earth minerals like gold and potentially offshore reservoirs of oil and gas. Under the Trump administration, the US seeks to acquire these resources to reduce its reliance on Chinese exports. Additionally, the melting of ice caps is opening new transpolar shipping routes, leading to increased competition with Russia and China for influence in the region.

There is some historical context behind all of this: in 1951, a defense agreement between the US and Denmark already granted the US broad military access to Greenland. However, Greenland is an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, and while Denmark manages its foreign affairs and defense, Greenland has its own parliament and control over internal matters.

US citizens can travel to Greenland for tourism or business for up to 90 days without a visa. There is no road system between towns, with travel being primarily by plane, helicopter, or boat.

International Response

President Trump’s renewed push to acquire Greenland, including threats of military action, has been met with a unified and forceful international rejection, particularly from European allies who emphasize Greenland's sovereignty and its status as a NATO member.

The prime minister of Denmark, Mette Frederiksen, has called the threats “absurd” and warned that a US attack on a NATO ally would “spell the end of NATO.” Additionally, Greenland’s prime minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen and other local leaders have repeatedly stated that “Greenland is not for sale.”

Leaders from the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and Poland joined Denmark in a joint statement, asserting that the future of Greenland is a matter solely for the Greenlandic and Danish people to decide. The leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Denmark and the UK said that security in the Arctic must be achieved collectively, in cooperation with allies in the NATO military alliance, including the United States.

Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen warned that a US military move against Greenland or any other NATO member would shatter the alliance, ending “everything” including NATO and the post-World War II security structure.

Previously, in late December of 2025, Trump had appointed Jeff Landry as a special envoy to Greenland with the intention of making the island a part of the US. This is not the first time the US has tried to buy Greenland; previous offers were made in 1867, 1946 (for $100 million in gold), and in 2019. Leaders from Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have issued joint statements supporting Greenland’s sovereignty.

In a statement from Tuesday evening, Danish Defense Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Troels Lund Poulsen said Denmark would spend 88 billion Danish kroner ($13.8 billion) rearming Greenland, given the “serious security situation we find ourselves in.” Despite the apparent willingness from Denmark to defend Greenland, analysts told CNBC that they do not believe European forces would ever open fire on American troops.

Within the US itself, a number of Democratic and Republican lawmakers have criticized the White House’s rhetoric, with some calling the talk of military action "needlessly dangerous.” There appears to be some ambiguity within the Trump administration itself, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio focusing on a potential purchase, while other officials have valued military action above all, keeping allies on edge.

Danish and Greenlandic envoys are currently in Washington, meeting with White House officials and US lawmakers to de-escalate the situation and seek “sensible dialogue.” For the record, Denmark has stated that it has no intention of “rolling over” and has already committed substantial  funds to improve its own surveillance and defense capabilities in the Arctic region.

Core Claims and Justifications of the Trump Administration

President Trump argues that US ownership is “vital to deter our adversaries,” claiming that Greenland is currently “covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place,” a situation which he asserts Denmark is incapable of managing. Additionally, Vice President JD Vance has claimed that the US missile defense infrastructure is “partially dependent” on Greenland and has criticized Denmark for failing to secure the territory.

A proposed multi-billion dollar “Golden Dome” missile defense shield, intended to protect  the US from US missile attacks, is a key driver for wanting a greater defensive presence on the island.

Beyond defense, the administration remains interested in Greenland's vast reserves of rare earth minerals, gold and oil to enshrine American hegemony in Western Hemisphere. The White House has confirmed that it has discussed various options to obtain and control Greenland:

Purchase: Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers that buying the territory has always been Trump’s “intent from the very beginning,” with ownership of Greenland’s natural resources being at least the main priority of the Trump administration. 

Individual Payments: US officials have discussed offering lump-sum payments of $10,000 to $100,000 directly to each of the 57,000 Greenlandic residents to sway them toward joining the US.

Military Force: White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated on January 6, 2026, that "utilizing the US military is always an option,” with even Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller further claiming that “nobody’s going to fight the US” over the territory.

In an interview on Fox News on Wednesday, Vice President JD Vance again declined to rule out the use of military force. In response to a question about what the United States would do to get Greenland, Mr. Vance said President Trump was “willing to go as far as he has to” to “defend American interests.”

Compact of Free association (COFA): Another option under consideration is a COFA agreement, similar to those the US has with several Pacific island nations.

The Danger of Trump’s National Security Strategy (NSS)

The NSS boldly states that “after years of neglect, the United States will reassert and enforce the Monroe Doctrine to restore American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere.” A "Trump Corollary” coerced neighbors to prevent mass migration to the United States and to cooperate in a fight against “narco-terrorists.”

Trump also wants to annex Canada, which the US has tried to do repeatedly in the nineteenth century. Trump’s desire to own Greenland parallels Secretary of State William Seward in 1867. Trump wants to control the Panama Canal, just as the US did after it opened in 1904. And of course recently, Trump’s military intervention in Venezuela harkens back to 1898, when the United States wrested control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and other Spanish possessions, which was part of an effort to turn the American republic into an empire.

Trump’s America First doctrine emerged mainly due to a response to economic and strategic overreach, with the issues of free trade, automation, and immigration bolstered by his historically divisive and controversial rhetoric. Compelled by his base for an inward turn from the rest of the world, Trump’s anti-immigration and civil rights impulse have taken hold to turn back the clock and reinstate an isolationist playbook that the United States embraced before it entered World War II.

Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy (NSS) explicitly calls for the return to an earlier era in US foreign policy. The NSS endorses a revival of the Monroe Doctrine, which was instigated in 1823 as an early articulation of the United States’ quest for hemispheric hegemony.

The beginning of 2026 has been marked by United States President Donald Trump’s bid to invade and annex the likes of Greenland just shortly after the abduction of Nicolás Maduro, with the Trump administration contradicting its opposition to foreign entanglements and “forever wars.”

The possibility of an invasion between NATO members— specifically a US move toward Greenland— has created an unprecedented crisis for the alliance. NATO’s founding documents do not contain a clear "intra-alliance" conflict resolution mechanism, leading to intense debate over the application of treaty articles.

It is unlikely that Trump can even deliver this goal, as the world has become too globalized and interdependent. When it comes to oscillating between depicting himself as a peacemaker and punishing his opponents, the inconstant and inconsistent nature of America First serves to limit the trade and commerce of a United States dependent on mutual foreign aid and labor, even as Trump’s tariffs slash the pockets of American taxpayers and cut off the nation’s closest allies.