Why Trump Wants Greenland: Strategic Location, Minerals, and Military Value

For more than a century, a unique position has existed within American strategic thinking with regard to Greenland.

Vast, sparsely populated, ice-covered, and politically tied to Denmark, the world’s largest island has repeatedly surfaced in U.S. debates about security, power projection, and territorial expansion.

What once appeared to be a relic of 19th- and early 20th-century geopolitics returned forcefully to global attention during Donald Trump’s presidency, when he openly argued that the United States should acquire Greenland.

While the idea was dismissed by many at the time as quixotic or impracticable, the logic behind it represented deep strategic, military, economic, and geopolitical calculations that go far beyond a single individual.

At the root of the issue is Greenland’s geography: sitting between North America and Europe, straddling the Arctic and the North Atlantic, Greenland occupies territory that U.S. defense planners have viewed as indispensable since World War II.

Its location makes it a forward platform for monitoring air and sea approaches to the American mainland, a hub for space and missile defense infrastructure, and a potential chokepoint in great-power competition in the Arctic.

The Trump-era rhetoric did not emerge in a vacuum.

From the Louisiana Purchase to Alaska, territorial purchases have been in the history books for the United States, and talks of Greenland started during the 19th century.

In 1867, and again at the beginning of the 20th century, U.S. officials explored the idea of buying the island from Denmark.

After World War II, Washington secretly offered to purchase Greenland in 1946, an offer Denmark rejected.

Nevertheless, America dug in militarily, keeping bases and securing its defense role by virtue of NATO and bilateral agreements.

Greenland today is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, with extensive self-government over internal affairs and a legally defined pathway to independence.

Greenlandic leaders have repeatedly emphasized that the island is “not for sale,” and both Denmark and Greenland assert the right of the Greenlandic people to determine their own future.

In spite of this, there has been growing American interest in the region during the more recent period, particularly due to great power competition, climate change, and the strategic return to the Arctic.

Trump’s utterances, especially during his second term of presidency that started in 2025, reimaginationed Greenland not only as a source for national security but rather as a prize.

His honest opinion, Trump said, “Look at the size of this. It’s massive. That should be part of the United States,” represented a mentality based on territory and strategic advantage.

Despite such positions being claimed to ignore the criteria of international law and the right of self-determination for the people of Greenland, it is also believed to embrace traditional security interests of America, which Denmark has been struggling to meet by itself.

The question of Greenland, therefore, is not simply an issue of property.

Rather, it would appear to have more to do with control, or access, in a progressively evolving Arctic region that finds Military-strategic, Economic, or environmental interests merging.

For decades, Greenland has been relegated to the fringes of world politics.

Now it is close to the middle of the new geopolitical fault lines.

A Strategic Arctic Crossroads

Greenland’s primary value to the United States lies in its location.

The island anchors the Greenland–Iceland–United Kingdom (GIUK) Gap, a stretch of ocean long viewed as critical to the maritime defense of eastern North America.

The gap played a particularly critical role during the Cold War in efforts to prevent Soviet submarines from breaking into the Atlantic Ocean carrying nuclear missiles with the reach of U.S. cities.

Advances in missile technology temporarily reduced the gap’s importance, but renewed Russian naval activity and hybrid warfare concerns have restored its strategic relevance.

From a U.S. perspective, Greenland’s coastline, approximately 27,000 miles, is both an opportunity and a vulnerability.

Monitoring this vast area is difficult, and American officials have described the island as a potential “security black hole.”

Russian vessels operating in the region are believed to possess capabilities to interfere with undersea cables, a risk that has grown as digital infrastructure becomes more central to modern warfare and economies.

Greenland’s airspace is no less important.

This has been considered essential by the United States for the air defense of North America, especially for an early warning system and the interception of long-range threats.

Some studies have proposed a greater integration of Greenland with the North American Aerospace Defense Command, namely NORAD.

Also Read: EU Pushes Back as Trump Threatens Tariffs Over Greenland Dispute

Presence of the Military and Space Defense

The American military presence in Greenland has its roots in World War II, when the U.S. occupied the island to deny a Nazi Germany the use of the island following the Danish occupation.

The presence has persisted through the Cold War era, formalized by the Greenland Defence Agreement signed in 1951, allowing the U.S. to set up its military bases on the island while accepting Danish sovereignty over the territory.

Today, there is only one active Base, which is located at Pituffik Space Base, Thule Air Base, located in northwest Greenland.

Nevertheless, with the current trend towards space defense, the base has assumed an important role.

Modern military and civilian systems rely heavily on polar-orbiting satellites, which require Arctic ground stations for consistent tracking and control.

Pituffik is one of only two such facilities available to the United States.

According to SpaceNews, the loss of this base would “have serious consequences for both a future conflict and business as usual in orbit.”

Reflecting this concern, U.S. lawmakers have framed Greenland as indispensable to maintaining American dominance in space and missile defense.

In January of 2025, U.S. Representative Mike Haridopolos stated that it was necessary for the country to take over Greenland, saying that “America cannot afford to cede an inch of space or the Arctic.”