Donald Trump is threatening to invade or buy Greenland to secure U.S. interests in the Arctic. The problem, according to foreign policy experts and Danish officials, is that America doesn’t need to do either. The United States already has nearly unrestricted military access to the vast Arctic island under a Cold War-era agreement that’s been in place for nearly 75 years.
Yet Trump, 79, has in recent days renewed his fixation with the territory, insisting it’s essential to national security and suggesting the U.S. should either purchase it or simply take control. He has raised concerns about Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic and mocked Denmark’s military presence, including its reliance on dog-sled patrols. “We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security,” he declared.
The remarks have infuriated Copenhagen and Nuuk while prompting analysts to shake their heads at what appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of America’s existing legal position on the island.
Under a 1951 defense agreement signed between the United States and Denmark, which still controls Greenland’s foreign and defense policy, the U.S. is allowed to “construct, install, maintain, and operate” military bases across the island. The pact grants sweeping authority over house personnel, landings, takeoffs, anchorages, and the movement of ships and aircraft. The agreement was updated in 2004 to formally include Greenland’s semiautonomous government, requiring consultation on significant changes.
Trump replaces the word “want” with “need” as he sets his sights on Greenland next:
“We [USA 🇺🇸] NEED Greenland”
An out of control authoritarian, imperialistic Emperor who couldn’t give a toss for International law
The world must respond
Isolate 🇺🇸 now. pic.twitter.com/aJPOB8S1P6
— Howard Beckett (@BeckettUnite) January 5, 2026
In practical terms, this means Washington already possesses what Trump is demanding.
“The U.S. has such a free hand in Greenland that it can pretty much do what it wants,” said Mikkel Runge Olesen, a researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies in Copenhagen. “I have a very hard time seeing that the U.S. couldn’t get pretty much everything it wanted if it just asked nicely.”
“People are calling him ‘beyond a moron’ on this issue because he is threatening invasion over something the U.S. already effectively has,” one European diplomatic source said. “The legal framework is already there.”
BREAKING – 🇬🇱🇺🇸 Trump mentions Greenland’s defense, U.S. discussing acquisition not lease of the country, suggests potential interest from Russia or China, emphasizes need for ownership. pic.twitter.com/oY0XFrN3Nf
— Technopolitik (@Technopolitik_) January 12, 2026
A former U.S. defense official was equally direct: “If this was about security, Washington could expand its presence tomorrow without buying or doing anything. That’s why allies are shaking their heads.”
Trump’s stated preference is to buy Greenland, but Denmark made clear that’s impossible. Greenland’s prime minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, said this week: “Our country is not for sale.”
Denmark doesn’t actually have the power to sell Greenland. While Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, it governs itself largely independently. The 57,000 people who live there are the only ones legally entitled to decide their country’s future.
The people of Greenland aren’t interested in being “bought.” A recent poll showed that 85% of residents oppose the United States taking over.
NEW!! Trump renews his push for the U.S. to acquire Greenland, citing ‘national security’ as Arctic tensions rise
POTUS’ social media salvo comes ahead of high-level White House talks with Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers this afternoon pic.twitter.com/d3szbPXzEC
— Alex Raufoglu (@ralakbar) January 14, 2026
During the Cold War, the U.S. had over a dozen military bases in Greenland. Today, that presence has shrunk significantly. There is only one active base left (Pittufik Space Base), which primarily monitors missile activity in the Arctic region.
Danish defense analyst Peter Ernstved Rasmussen explained that consultation requirements under the 1951 agreement are largely ceremonial. “It is a courtesy formula,” he said. “If the U.S. wanted to act without asking, it could simply inform Denmark that it is building a base, an airfield, or a port.”
Which raises the obvious question that has frustrated Danish officials: Why threaten invasion when the mechanism for expansion already exists?
“Why don’t you use the mechanism of the defense agreement if you’re so worried about the security situation?” asked Jens Adser Sorensen, a former senior official in Denmark’s parliament. “The framework is there. It’s in place.”
Inquisitr has reached out to Donald Trump’s reps for comments.
