How Trump & military Force could secure Greenland without firing a shot
US President Donald Trump has never ruled out using military force to take control of Greenland, but analysts say Washington has several ways to achieve its goal without a single shot being fired.
Fresh from flexing American power following the capture of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro, Mr Trump has brushed aside European criticism of his repeated calls to annex the mineral rich Arctic island, arguing that Greenland is vital to US national security.
A senior administration official recently said the president was exploring a wide range of options.
“The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and utilising the US military is always an option,” the official said.
Yet hours later, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested the threat of force may be intended to pressure Denmark into a deal rather than signal an imminent invasion.
Buying Greenland
Mr Rubio has briefed US lawmakers that Washington’s preferred route is to buy Greenland rather than seize it. On the same day, Mr Trump reportedly instructed aides to update plans for acquiring the territory.
The secretary of state is expected to meet Greenlandic and Danish officials next week, following months of unsuccessful efforts by Copenhagen to secure talks.
The idea of buying Greenland is not new. Mr Trump, a former property developer, unsuccessfully floated the idea during his first term in 2019. In 1946, President Harry Truman offered Denmark $100m in gold, an offer that was firmly rejected.
Historically, the United States has often expanded by purchase rather than conquest. The Louisiana Purchase of 1803 saw Washington buy vast tracts of land from France, while the Alaska Purchase in 1867 brought territory from Russia. In 1917, the US bought the Virgin Islands from Denmark.
Greenland, however, presents unique challenges. Its strategic position and untapped natural resources make it hard to value, and its political status complicates any sale.
Greenland is a self governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, which retains control over foreign policy, defence and currency. Under a 2009 agreement, Greenland gained the right to declare independence in the future.
Its prime minister Jens Frederik Nielsen has repeatedly said the island is not for sale. Denmark’s prime minister Mette Frederiksen has also ruled out any transfer of sovereignty.
“It’s a seller’s market,” said Dafydd Townley of the University of Portsmouth. “If Denmark does not want to sell, then Denmark does not want to sell.”
Divide and entice
Some analysts believe Mr Trump may instead try to encourage Greenlanders to choose closer ties with the US over eventual independence.
The president has promised that Greenland’s 57,000 residents would become wealthier if they joined the United States. His son, Donald Trump Jr, and Vice President JD Vance have both visited Greenland to promote the idea.
According to the New York Times, US officials previously discussed replacing Denmark’s annual subsidies with payments of $10,000 per person each year. The effort appears to have backfired. Locals have responded with scepticism, and souvenir shops now sell red caps reading “Make America Go Away”.
In elections last year, Greenlanders backed Demokraatit, a centre right party historically supportive of ties with Denmark, suggesting US overtures hardened opposition rather than softened it.
Danish officials have also accused Washington of covert influence operations. The Danish government summoned US diplomats several times last year over allegations of spying.
Still, some Greenlandic politicians are open to talks. Juno Berthelsen of the Naleraq party has called for direct discussions with the US, without Denmark present, arguing Greenland should prepare for independence on its own terms.
Trade for troops
Another option under consideration is a bespoke security and trade agreement. Washington has explored offering Greenland a Compact of Free Association, similar to agreements the US has with Pacific nations such as the Marshall Islands and Palau.
Under such a deal, the US would gain broad military access in exchange for defence guarantees, free trade and essential services.
Naleraq leader Kuno Fencker has suggested a Compact of Free Association could be more attractive than Greenland’s current self government arrangement.
Denmark strongly opposes the idea, noting that the US already operates a major military installation on the island.
Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base, is the US military’s northernmost outpost and a cornerstone of missile defence and space surveillance.
Copenhagen has said it is willing to strengthen Arctic security through Nato cooperation, but will not relinquish sovereignty.
A negotiated compromise
Mr Trump has built his political brand around deal making, and allies hope negotiations can defuse the standoff.
The existing defence agreement does not specify limits on US troop numbers in Greenland, although any significant increase would likely require Danish approval. Analysts say a carefully framed deal tied to rare earth minerals could allow Mr Trump to claim victory without formal annexation.
Insiders say detailed plans remain fluid. Internal polling earlier this year reportedly showed Americans reacted negatively to annexation threats, leading the White House to quietly drop the issue until Mr Trump revived it recently.
“It’s a classic Trump dynamic,” one source close to the administration said. “He says something unplanned, then the White House scrambles to justify it.”
Dr Townley expects any eventual agreement to centre on US access to Greenland’s rare earth minerals in return for expanded defence commitments.
“This is about coercing Denmark and Greenland into granting access to strategic resources, reducing reliance on China and strengthening America’s Arctic footprint,” he said.
Pressure on Europe
Mr Trump is acutely aware of Europe’s reliance on US security guarantees. In theory, he could argue that US forces stationed in Europe are needed elsewhere, particularly in the Arctic.
However, a reduced US presence in Europe would undermine Washington’s ability to project power in the Middle East and beyond. With peace talks over Ukraine delicately balanced, the leverage cuts both ways.
Read More : US President weighs military and diplomatic options to acquire Greenland
One EU diplomat warned that annexing Greenland would irreparably damage transatlantic relations.
“The US has to decide whether it wants to keep Europe close or push it away,” the diplomat said. “Taking Greenland would be the last nail in the coffin.”
Military action as a last resort
A military takeover of sparsely populated Greenland is theoretically possible, but would be fraught with risk. Danish forces are authorised to resist any invasion, and analysts say Denmark could make US operations extremely difficult without engaging directly.
“If you put thousands of troops on the ice sheet, it becomes a vulnerability, not a strength,” said Esben Salling Larsen of the Danish Defence Academy.
European officials have even discussed deploying a symbolic multinational force to Greenland, not to fight the US but to force Washington to confront the reality of attacking Nato allies.
Any such scenario would plunge Nato into an unprecedented crisis. Ms Frederiksen has warned that a US invasion would spell the end of the alliance.
Domestically, Mr Trump would also face scepticism. Many Americans are more concerned about living costs than Arctic geopolitics, and his core supporters oppose foreign entanglements. With mid term elections looming, some Republicans may baulk at backing a move that risks political fallout.
For now, analysts believe pressure, incentives and negotiation remain Mr Trump’s most likely path, a strategy designed to secure Greenland’s strategic value without ever ordering troops to advance.
