The arctic poker game: Trump's gambit for Greenland

The persistent interest of the Trump administration in Greenland continues to shape transatlantic relations. As we move through 2026, it is essential to examine the underlying motivations for this fixation and the potential concessions Denmark and Greenland may face.

Economic interests and mineral wealth

One primary argument suggests the United States is targeting Greenland’s vast, untapped mineral resources. With proven deposits and active mining operations, the island represents a significant economic opportunity.

Similar to approaches seen regarding Ukraine and Venezuela, the administration appears focused on securing exclusive access for American companies. Rumors suggest this interest was piqued in 2019 by reports from Australian geologists regarding the island's resource potential.

However, sovereignty is not a prerequisite for resource access. US companies already operate globally without the US government holding territorial control. Furthermore, domestic regions like Alaska possess similar untapped potential. If logic does not prevail, a potential compromise might involve Denmark and Greenland granting preferential mining rights to US firms.

While this would likely breach competition laws and undermine Greenlandic self-determination, it may be viewed by some as a necessary concession to maintain diplomatic stability.

Strategic military positioning and the Arctic reality

The administration frequently cites the need to curb Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic as a reason for control. However, this argument often misinterprets the geography of the region. The Arctic Ocean is vast, and Russia’s strategic nuclear capabilities—specifically those on the Kola Peninsula—are closer to Norway than Greenland.

While Greenland is situated under the flight paths of potential ballistic missiles, the US already maintains a significant presence at the Pituffik Space Base to monitor these threats. Russian naval activity remains concentrated in the Barents Sea and along the Norwegian coast. Similarly, while China has expressed interest in Arctic shipping and mining, its actual physical presence near Greenland remains minimal, often restricted by security-related investment blocks.

Interestingly, despite the rhetoric of "dominance," the administration has occasionally suggested economic cooperation with Russia in the Arctic, as evidenced by the 2025 meeting in Alaska. If the actual concern is Chinese influence, the focus would logically shift toward Alaska and the declining global trust in US international agreements.

The "Donroe" doctrine and the return of great power politics

The most significant driver appears to be a modern iteration of the Monroe Doctrine—informally dubbed the "Donroe doctrine." This philosophy suggests that the United States should exercise a sphere of influence over its immediate vicinity, mirroring the territorial ambitions seen in other global powers. This 19th-century approach prioritizes the power of large states over the sovereignty of smaller ones.

For the Kingdom of Denmark, this is a precarious position. If the US insists on "control" over Greenland, it sets a precedent that could embolden Russia to make similar claims on areas like Svalbard. While most international policy has moved toward a rules-based system of mutual respect for borders, the current US administration appears to favor a zero-sum game of dominance.

Potential concessions and the path forward

While a military move against a NATO ally like Denmark remains highly unlikely and legally complex, the US can maintain pressure through increased military activity and political interference. Denmark has already committed over 6 billion USD to Arctic defense, including the purchase of US-made F-35s and P-8 aircraft, but this may not satisfy the demand for a "deal."

Possible outcomes include:

· The establishment of new American or joint military bases on the island.

· A formal agreement making the US explicitly responsible for Greenland’s defense.

· Increased Danish military participation in Alaskan exercises to prove its value as an ally.

Alternatively, Denmark could accelerate the Greenlandic independence process. With a self-government report due at the end of 2026, a move toward sovereignty could shift the burden of defense costs to the US and Canada. However, this would result in Denmark losing its status as a major Arctic power—a legacy few leaders in Copenhagen wish to leave behind.

For now, European leaders appear to be maintaining a firm stance, potentially waiting for a shift in the US political landscape during the upcoming midterm elections.