January 21, 2026

SHARE |

Trump’s Push for Greenland Could Permanently Damage Transatlantic Relations

AP Photo/Virginia Mayo

U.S. President Donald Trump’s relentless push to acquire Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark, could permanently damage the Transatlantic relationship between the United States and Europe. It could also, in a worst-case scenario, lead to the disintegration of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the bedrock of Western security for roughly the past eight decades. In late December, Trump made it clear that he believed Greenland was essential to U.S. national security and crucial to boxing out growing Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic, a growing arena of great-power competition. In response to a question on why he considered Greenland so integral to U.S. national security, President Trump replied, “We need that because if you take a look outside of Greenland right now, there are Russian destroyers, there are Chinese destroyers and, bigger, Russian submarines all over the place. We’re not gonna have Russia or China occupy Greenland, and that’s what they’re going to do if we don’t.” The United States already operates a military base on Greenland, and Washington and Copenhagen are longstanding NATO allies that have deployed together in multiple combat zones, including Iraq and Afghanistan.

As U.S. interest grew, a Special Envoy to Greenland was appointed, and Trump administration officials publicly admitted that all options were on the table. This included military options, as President Trump suggested that the U.S. would like to make a deal on Greenland and do things “the easy way,” but if that option failed, he would consider doing things “the hard way,” suggesting a more coercive approach. For the Trump administration, Greenland would be central to the concept of hemispheric defense, as outlined in the recently released National Security Strategy. Trump’s interest in Greenland dates back years, and in 2018, he asked his then-national security advisor, John Bolton, to explore the possibility further. Greenland is believed to have large reserves of critical minerals, and Trump has linked his desire to acquire it to planning for a so-called “Golden Dome” missile defense system. Many believe that President Trump also sees acquiring Greenland for the U.S. as part of his legacy.

The aggressive rhetoric toward Denmark has brought a chill to U.S.-European relations with no recent parallel. The European Commissioner for Defence and Space, Andrius Kubilius, said that a U.S. military takeover of Greenland would be the end of NATO. The very public spat and growing fissure are being welcomed in Moscow, where Russian President Vladimir Putin benefits greatly from continued Transatlantic disunity, which is sure to have a negative impact on Ukraine’s continued defense against the Kremlin’s military onslaught. Moreover, Russia is increasingly using hybrid threats across Europe, combining kinetic and non-kinetic operations. When Europe recently sent a modest contingent of troops to Greenland for a military exercise related to Arctic security—the contingent included one British soldier, two Finns, and a few dozen troops from Denmark, France, and Germany—the Trump administration reacted angrily. Several European leaders, including Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and Finland’s President Alexander Stubb, conceded that the messaging was clumsy and easily misconstrued. Trump responded with threats of further tariffs on imported goods from all European countries, which continue to oppose his quest to acquire Greenland, starting at 10 percent and ratcheting up to 25 percent on June 1^st if no deal is reached by then. On Monday, Denmark reinforced its existing deployment, sending several aircraft carrying troops and military equipment to Greenland.

With the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, kicking off this week, much of the focus will be on Europe’s ability to present a unified front. European diplomatic mobilization kicked into high gear, and the Europeans are considering a range of options, including economic measures that would be painful for all parties involved. The impact has already been felt on Wall Street, where the U.S. dollar fell sharply, and stocks were set for heavy losses amidst continued uncertainty and the possibility that a further deterioration in the Transatlantic relationship could spur a wider economic downturn. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen promised an “unflinching united and proportional response.” U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said “it would be very unwise” for Europe to introduce retaliatory economic measures in response to Trump’s tariffs. “We are going to do something on Greenland whether they like it or not...one way or another, we’re going to have Greenland,” said Trump aboard Air Force One last week.

Europe finds itself in an unenviable position. If the Europeans capitulate to Trump, they will look weak; pushing back too hard could lead to a lasting rupture in the relationship. And for all of Europe’s talk about strategic autonomy, years of underinvestment in national militaries and defense budgets have left European countries, and by extension NATO, in an extremely vulnerable position, overly reliant on American military muscle and logistical support. Some analysts believe that the Trump administration’s successful operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and bring him and his wife back to the United States to face federal drug trafficking charges increased the President’s confidence that he could push the envelope by pursuing unorthodox foreign policy objectives, including his current pursuit of Greenland.

As Trump heads to Davos, he announced plans to meet with NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, and relayed that the two had recently completed a “very good” call. Still, he used his social media platform, Truth Social, to mock the United Kingdom and to share personal messages with other world leaders. Many Western policymakers are calling for cooler heads to prevail, but moving beyond this impasse is no inevitability. Even if NATO leaders can come together to present a united front, the fissures in the alliance are clear for all to see, including Moscow and Beijing, which will no doubt seek to increase their gray-zone tactics to take advantage of this current, very public dispute. This is just the latest incident leading to a real erosion of trust between longtime allies, and the fallout will be difficult, if not impossible, to repair. The data is unequivocal. According to a November poll by the European Council on Foreign Relations, only 16 percent of Europeans view the U.S. as an ally that shares the same values.