Trump’s Greenland Gambit: Tariffs, Territory and Tensions of Influence
In what feels like a script from a political satire, the former President Donald Trump has opined again about his desire to get Greenland more firmly under American control. This time, it’s more than just talk of a real estate deal: It’s a full-tilt geopolitical campaign, backed by threats of tariffs and policy proposals that seem rooted in United States agreements with Pacific island nations.
Trump’s announcement Monday – of “very high” tariffs on Denmark if the Scandinavian country didn’t cough up Greenland – was headline-making. “They will have to discuss that,” he added, referring to the island’s leadership, as he goes all in on his argument that Greenland is strategically vital.
The Power Move in Tariffs
Denmark might be a small trading partner for the United States, but the country has significant influence in one major category of global export: pharmaceuticals. With companies like Novo Nordisk, which makes the weight-loss drug Ozempic as well as insulin mainstays, shipping billions of dollars’ worth of medicine to the U.S., Trump’s threats could have real teeth.
Add to that Denmark’s status as the world’s largest provider of hearing aids, an exporter of scientific instruments, and even (to some extent) toys (hello, LEGO), and the notion of a broad tariff isn’t just a political pawn – it’s a significant threat to everything from health care to kids’ play.
Yet Trump doesn’t appear to be bothered about trade interdependencies. His goal, it would seem, is not just to stomp on Denmark economically, but to recast the Arctic – and by extension all things Greenland – as a lynchpin in the accelerating strategic competition with Russia and China.
Why Greenland Matters
To most Americans, Greenland is little more than a frozen land extention that barely touches our lives. But for national security hawks and climate strategists, it’s a cauldron of unrealized riches – rich in rare earth minerals, strategic airspace and a people who have grown more interested in independence from Denmark.
The island lies on one of the shortest paths between the United States and Russia, so is essential to systems that monitor missile launches and defense capabilities on both sides. The United States already has the Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base) in northern Greenland, a major piece of American military infrastructure.
And here we are, performance finished, and now Trump wants even more, perhaps in the form of a compact of free association (COFA), a sort of agreement the U.S. has long signed with smaller Pacific island states like Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau. THE HISTORIC AGREEMENT Under the COFA pacts, the U.S. lavishes a variety of government services and military protection on the islands and has nearly unimpeded military access and preferential economic terms.
The COFA Proposal: From Autonomy to Annexation
The Trump administration is reportedly considering a new kind of compact with Greenland, a subject of multiple discussions among White House staff and people encouraged by the administration to explore the possibility of Greenlandic acquisition. The notion, while legally complicated and politically fraught, would give the United States a tighter grip without actually buying or annexing the island – a middle ground between influence and ownership.
But there’s a catch: COFA deals have always been inked with fully independent nations. Greenland is not one. It is to this day an autonomous territory under Danish crown rule. So for the plan to work, Greenland would probably have to become independent from Denmark – a step many people in Greenland back in principle, but not to become a U.S. department.
The notion of ceding some of their self-rule to Washington, even if it is billed as partnership, has faced harsh rebuke from local leaders.
“Greenland is not American and it is not for sale,” Greenlandic Prime Minister Múte Egede wrote on Facebook, rejecting the notion of U.S. dominion in no uncertain terms.
Denmark’s Response: Dismissal and Embarrassment
In Copenhagen, reactions to Trump’s threats have varied, from the diplomatic to the derisive. European officials brushed off Trump’s remarks as “hypothetical,” and others warned of possible retaliation if the U.S. were to levy tariffs on Denmark.
“The notion that he should be able to pressure Denmark as an individual member of the E.U. to bend via tariffs is going to generate a backlash against the entire E.U.,” said Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute.
There’s history here too. The U.S. sought to buy Greenland in 1867 and again in 1946, when it offered $100 million. Both times, Denmark said no. An idea that Trump resurrected in 2019, only to be publicly rebuffed by Danish and Greenlandic officials.
And now in 2025, his administration seems to be running the same playbook – only tweaked for a geopolitical world in disarray.
The Strategic Case for Greenland: China, Russia and the Arctic
Why the urgency now? For one thing, the world is taking growing interest in the Arctic. Melting ice has opened formerly inaccessible sea passages, and with them comes interest in shipping lanes, fishing rights, and mineral riches.
Both Russia and China have expanded their military and economic reach in the Arctic. Namely there is the not-insignificant fact that China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and that it is investing heavily in Arctic infrastructure.
For the U.S., Greenland is about more than resources or nostalgia. It’s the struggle to outflank enemies in one of the few remaining geopolitical frontiers.
Greenland Local Politics: Independence, Not Integration
But despite their strategic appeal, the residents of Greenland – about 56,000 of them, mostly Inuit – have long been wary of being swallowed up by another global power. The issue of independence dominated recent elections.
U.S. visits by high ranking officials such as Mike Waltz and Usha Vance were described as “aggressive,” by outgoing Prime Minister Egede - a same as opposition politicians. The center-right Democratic Party, which emerged victorious in the recent general election, supports a slow and steady move toward independence, not a whipsaw toward Washington.
Opinion polls show that 80% of Greenlanders want to be independent of Denmark, though 85% do not want to join the United States. As one resident phrased it, “Trump can come here, but that is all you can do.”
What’s Next? Mixed Signals, Major Stakes
It’s unclear how far Trump is willing – or able – to go to make good on his Greenland ambitions. A few of his previous threats of tariffs have ended up falling flat. Others, such as those on China, prompted serious trade war tensions.
A COFA deal would have to be ratified by legislation, financed and, in the case of Greenland, perhaps even put to a referendum, a challenging set of hurdles in today’s political environment. There’s also the question of Danish approval, which does not seem likely.
But the mere fact that the Trump administration is considering such options underscores how ambitious their Arctic goals are. Greenland isn’t for sale – but it is open for business.
Conclusion
Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland is more than just a kooky footnote. It is a window into a changing world order, where Arctic turf, trade leverage, and geopolitical symbolism all bump up against one another. From tariffs to compacts, the U.S. is taking action. The only question is how the rest of the world – and the inhabitants of Greenland themselves – will react.
The island has long been yearned for by empires, as history attests. But the people of Greenland, at a time when independence, identity and self-determination are increasingly hard-won values, may not respond to cash or power.
It could instead demand that the world listen – not negotiate – on its terms.
FAQs
Q: Why does Donald Trump want to acquire Greenland?
A: Trump views Greenland as strategically important due to its location, rare earth minerals, and military value. His administration sees the island as crucial to U.S. national security.
Q: What is a Compact of Free Association (COFA)?
A: COFA agreements are treaties where the U.S. provides economic and military benefits to small island nations in exchange for military access and strategic alignment. Trump proposes this for Greenland.
Q: How has Denmark responded to Trump’s Greenland ambitions?
A: Denmark has firmly rejected Trump’s proposals, calling Greenland not for sale. European officials warn that tariff threats could spark wider EU retaliation.
Q: What do Greenlanders think about U.S. acquisition?
A: While many Greenlanders support independence from Denmark, the vast majority oppose becoming part of the United States.
Q: What happens next if Trump pushes forward?
A: Any serious move would face diplomatic resistance, legal hurdles, and likely Greenlandic and Danish public opposition. The feasibility of any COFA deal remains low for now.
Reference
How Trump’s Greenland Plan Could Hit Ozempic, Legos and Hearing Aids
US considers special status for Greenland amid Trump push for control
Why does Trump want Greenland and what do its people think?
Stay updated with all the latest news and insights – News Of US
