Donald Trump wants the US to own Greenland. The problem is that Greenland already belongs to Denmark and most Greenlanders don't want to become part of the US.
While a surprise entry into Greenland's capital, Nuuk, and a Venezuelan-style takeover seems phantasmagoric — even though the military assault on Caracas seems to have given all sides a jolt about what the U.S. is capable of, there is a clear path. And Trump seems to have already moved somewhat in that direction.
Worryingly for Europeans, the strategy closely resembles Vladimir Putin’s expansionist playbook. POLITICO spoke with nine EU officials, NATO sources, defense experts and diplomats to analyze how a U.S. takeover of this mineral-rich and strategically important Arctic island could play out.
“It could be like five helicopters… it wouldn’t take many troops,” said a Danish politician who requested anonymity to speak freely. “There would be nothing they [the Greenlanders] could do.”
Step 1: Influence campaign to strengthen the movement for Greenlandic independence
Almost immediately after taking office, the Trump administration began talking openly about the independence of Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. An independent Greenland would be able to sign an agreement with the United States, whereas under the current status quo it would need Copenhagen’s approval.
To gain independence, Greenlanders would have to vote in a referendum and then negotiate an agreement that would have to be approved by both Nuuk and Copenhagen. In a 2025 poll, 56 percent of Greenlanders said they would vote for independence, while 28 percent opposed it.
According to Danish media reports, Americans with ties to Trump have conducted covert influence operations in Greenland, while the Danish security and intelligence service, PET, warned that the territory “is the target of influence campaigns of various kinds.”
Felix Kartte, a digital policy expert who has advised EU institutions and governments, pointed to Moscow’s tactics to influence political outcomes in countries such as Moldova, Romania and Ukraine.
“Rusia përzien taktika offline dhe online,” tha ai. “Në terren, bashkëpunon me aktorë të afërt si parti ekstremiste, rrjete të diasporës ose oligarkë pro-rusë dhe është raportuar se paguan njerëz për të marrë pjesë në protesta anti-BE ose anti-SHBA.
“Në të njëjtën kohë, ndërton rrjete të mëdha llogarish të rreme dhe media pseudo për të amplifikuar këto aktivitete online dhe për të promovuar kandidatë ose qëndrime të caktuara. Qëllimi shpesh nuk është t’i bindë votuesit se opsioni pro-rus është më i mirë, por ta bëjë atë të duket më i madh, më i zhurmshëm dhe më popullor sesa është në të vërtetë, duke krijuar një ndjenjë pashmangshmërie.”
Në Grenlandë, SHBA-ja duket se po përdor të paktën disa nga këto metoda.
Stephen Miller, zëvendësshefi i kabinetit të Trump, i tha CNN-it të hënën se “askush nuk do të luftojë ushtarakisht me SHBA-në për të ardhmen e Grenlandës”.
Muajin e kaluar, Trump krijoi postin e të dërguarit special për Grenlandën dhe emëroi në këtë rol guvernatorin e Luizianës, Jeff Landry. Ai deklaroi se synimi i tij ishte “ta bëjë Grenlandën pjesë të SHBA-së”.
Ndërkohë, zv.presidenti amerikan JD Vance, gjatë një vizite në territor në mars, tha se “populli i Grenlandës do të ketë vetëvendosje”. Ai shtoi: “Shpresojmë që ata të zgjedhin të bashkëpunojnë me Shtetet e Bashkuara, sepse ne jemi i vetmi vend në Tokë që do ta respektojë sovranitetin dhe sigurinë e tyre.”
Hapi 2: T’i ofrohet Grenlandës një marrëveshje joshëse
Nëse përpjekjet për të përshpejtuar referendumin për pavarësinë e Grenlandës japin rezultat dhe banorët votojnë për t’u shkëputur nga Danimarka, hapi tjetër do të ishte vënia e saj nën ndikimin e SHBA-së.
Një metodë e dukshme do të ishte përfshirja e Grenlandës në SHBA si një shtet i ri, një ide me të cilën njerëz pranë presidentit kanë luajtur vazhdimisht. Kryeministrja e Danimarkës, Mette Frederiksen, u detyrua të hënën të thotë se “SHBA-ja nuk ka të drejtë të aneksojë” Grenlandën, pasi Katie Miller — bashkëshortja e Stephen Miller — postoi në rrjetet sociale një hartë të territorit të mbuluar me flamurin amerikan dhe fjalën “SË SHPEJTI”.
Një zëvendësim i drejtpërdrejtë i Danimarkës me SHBA-në duket i papranueshëm për shumicën e popullsisë. I njëjti sondazh tregoi se 85 për qind e grenlandezëve kundërshtojnë që territori të bëhet pjesë e SHBA-së, dhe madje edhe anëtarë të lëvizjes për pavarësi që janë miqësorë ndaj Trump nuk janë të prirur ndaj kësaj ideje. Por ka edhe opsione të tjera.
Since May of last year, reports have circulated that the Trump administration wants Greenland to sign a Compact of Free Association (COFA), similar to the ones the US currently has with Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau. Under these agreements, the US provides essential services, defence and free trade in exchange for unrestricted US military operations on the territory of those countries. The idea resurfaced again this week.
Kuno Fencker, a pro-independence Greenlandic opposition lawmaker who attended Trump’s inauguration and met last year with Republican Congressman Andy Ogles, said he tries to “explain to [Americans] that we do not want to be like Puerto Rico or any other territory of the United States. But a Compact of Free Association, bilateral agreements, or even other possibilities and forms that I probably can’t even imagine, let them come to the table and the Greenlanders will decide in a plebiscite.”
Compared to the Nuuk deal with Copenhagen, things “can only get better,” he said.
Referring to Trump’s claim that the US “needs” Greenland, Fencker added: “Denmark has never said it ‘needs’ Greenland. Denmark has said that Greenland is a cost and that they would leave us if we became independent. So I think this is a much more positive comment than we have ever seen from Denmark.”
But Thomas Crosbie, associate professor of military operations at the Royal Danish Defense College, warned that Greenland is unlikely to emerge victorious in a negotiation with Trump.
“Trump’s core identity as a negotiator is that of someone who imposes his will on the people he negotiates with and who has a very long history of betraying the people he has made deals with, of not honoring his commitments, both in private and public life, and of exploiting those around him… I really don’t see any benefit to the people of Greenland, other than a very temporary boost in self-esteem.”
And, he added, “it would be foolish to accept something in the hope that a deal might come later. I mean, if you give up your territory in the hope that you can get a deal later — that would be really reckless.”
Step 3: Get Europe involved
Europe, especially Denmark’s EU allies, would oppose any attempt to detach Greenland from Copenhagen. But the US administration has a strong card to play in this regard: Ukraine.
As peace negotiations have gained momentum, Kiev has said that any deal with Putin must be backed by serious, long-term security guarantees from the US. The Americans have been hesitant on this front, and in any case, Kiev is skeptical of security guarantees, given that those it has previously received from both Russia and the West have proven ineffective.
One possible scenario, mentioned by an EU diplomat, would be a “security for security” deal, under which Europe would receive stronger guarantees from the Trump administration for Ukraine in exchange for an expanded US role in Greenland.
Although this would be a bitter pill, it might be easier to swallow than the alternative: angering Trump, who could retaliate by imposing sanctions, withdrawing from peace negotiations, or supporting Putin in talks with Ukraine.
Step 4: Military invasion
But what if Greenland, or Denmark, whose approval Nuuk needs to secede, says no?
A U.S. military takeover could be accomplished without much difficulty.
Crosbie of the Royal Danish Defense College said Trump's strategists are likely to present him with several options.
“The most worrying would be a fait accompli strategy, which we see a lot and discuss a lot in military circles, which would be to simply grab territory, as Putin tried to do to make territorial claims on Ukraine. He could simply put troops in the country and say it’s American now… The United States military is capable of landing any number of forces in Greenland, whether by air or sea, and then claiming it’s American territory.”
According to Lin Mortensgaard, a researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies and an expert on Greenland security, Washington also has about 500 military officers, including local contractors, at the Pituffik Space Base in the north, as well as just under 10 consular staff in Nuuk. In addition, about 100 National Guard troops from New York are usually deployed seasonally during the Arctic summer to support research missions. Greenland, meanwhile, has few defenses. The population has no territorial army, Mortensgaard said, while Denmark’s Joint Arctic Command in the capital has few and outdated military assets, largely limited to four inspection and naval vessels, a dog-sled patrol, a few helicopters and a maritime patrol aircraft.
As a result, if Trump mobilizes the American presence on the ground, or brings in special forces, the US could take control of Nuuk “in half an hour or less,” Mortensgaard said.
“Mr. Trump says things and then he does them,” said Danish MEP Stine Bosse. “If you were one of the 60,000 people in Greenland, you would be very worried.”
Any intervention would have “no legal basis” under U.S. and international law, said Romain Chuffart, director of the Washington-based Arctic Institute, a security think tank. Any occupation lasting more than 60 days would also require approval from the U.S. Congress.
Meanwhile, an invasion would “spell the end of NATO,” he said, and the U.S. would be “shooting itself in the foot and saying goodbye to an alliance it helped create.”
Moreover, “the loss of trust from key allies… could lead to a reduction in their willingness to share intelligence with the U.S. or to restricted access to bases across Europe,” said Ben Hodges, the former commander of U.S. forces in Europe. “Both of these would be extremely detrimental to American security.”
NATO would be unable to respond, given that military action must be unanimously approved and the United States is the key member of the alliance, but European allies could send troops to Greenland through other formats such as the British-Scandinavian Joint Expeditionary Force or the Nordic five-party defense cooperation, said Ed Arnold, a senior fellow at the Royal United Services Institute. But for now, NATO allies remain calm in the face of an attack. “We are still a long way from that scenario,” said a senior alliance diplomat. “There could be some difficult negotiations, but I don’t think we are close to a hostile takeover.”
