The United States has long been interested in Greenland- a region of immense strategic and economic importance. This interest is not new, dating back to the 19th century, with notable attempts to purchase the island in 1867, 1910, 1946, and 1955. Most recently, in 2019, the idea of acquiring Greenland resurfaced under the first Trump administration, sparking renewed discussions about the island’s value to American national security and its broader geopolitical ambitions.
Greenland’s importance lies in its unique location and untapped potential. Strategically, the island occupies a critical position in the Arctic- particularly within the GIUK Gap (Greenland, Iceland, United Kingdom)- a chokepoint that controls access to the Atlantic Ocean. During the Cold War, this area was vital for monitoring Soviet submarines, and today it remains crucial for tracking Russian naval activity. With the Arctic warming and ice melting at unprecedented rates, new shipping routes and resources are becoming accessible- raising both economic opportunities and security concerns. Control of Greenland would enhance the U.S. ability to project power in the region while countering the growing influence of China and Russia.
Geography is only part of the equation- Greenland’s role in missile defense and early warning systems is just as significant. The shortest route for Russian missiles or bombers targeting the United States is over the North Pole. Greenland’s Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base, serves as a cornerstone of U.S. and NATO defense operations. Its radar systems track missile activity and provide critical early warnings- making Greenland indispensable in both current and future defense strategies.
It is also important to note that Greenland, as part of the Kingdom of Denmark, is a NATO ally. This status integrates Greenland into the alliance’s collective defense framework, meaning that any attack on Greenland would trigger Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty- a collective response from all NATO members. The United States has maintained a military presence in Greenland for decades, operating under agreements with Denmark. This partnership highlights the collaborative nature of defense operations in the Arctic and ensures that Greenland’s security is supported by multilateral commitments, balancing American interests with NATO’s collective goals. While some in the U.S. have advocated for greater control of Greenland, any actions must respect its ties to NATO and Denmark’s sovereignty, emphasizing alliance cohesion in an increasingly competitive Arctic.
Economically, Greenland offers vast potential. While its economy is currently small- roughly $3 billion annually, with 20% subsidized by Denmark- the island is believed to hold immense reserves of rare-earth elements, oil, and gas. Rare-earth elements are crucial for renewable energy technologies, electric vehicles, and defense equipment- areas where the U.S. seeks to reduce dependence on China, which dominates global production. U.S. Geological Survey estimates suggest that Greenland could hold 17.5 billion barrels of offshore oil and over 4 trillion cubic meters of natural gas. There is also growing interest in the island’s fresh water resources and its potential as a hub for shipping routes, though previous attempts to extract these resources have been met with logistical and environmental challenges.
This interest isn’t without historical precedent- other nations have engaged in territorial negotiations that offer parallels. In 2017, Saudi Arabia purchased the uninhabited islands of Tiran and Sanafir from Egypt. While these islands lacked a permanent population, the transaction highlighted how territorial acquisitions are still pursued in modern geopolitics- though Greenland’s situation is far more complex due to its population, autonomy, and strategic role. Any U.S. attempt to acquire Greenland would face significant political, cultural, and legal hurdles.
Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and its population has the right to self-determination. Over recent years, there has been a growing independence movement on the island- further complicating any discussion of a potential sale. Historically, Greenland has worked closely with Denmark and the U.S. through NATO agreements, but proposals for outright acquisition would require the consent of both Greenland and Denmark- an outcome that seems unlikely given the political sensitivities involved. A military approach is not a feasible option- Denmark is a NATO ally, and any conflict would have significant ramifications for the alliance and the global perception of U.S. foreign policy.
Even if outright acquisition is off the table, the U.S. is unlikely to lose interest in Greenland. Instead, its focus may shift toward strengthening economic partnerships, defense agreements, and strategic investments- a strategy that aligns with broader Arctic policies aimed at countering rival powers like Russia and China. The Arctic’s significance will only grow in the coming decades, making Greenland a key piece of the geopolitical puzzle.
Ultimately, U.S. interest in Greenland underscores the enduring importance of the Arctic in shaping the global balance of power. Whether through territorial expansion or deeper partnerships, the island will remain central to U.S. national security and economic ambitions in an increasingly contested world.
About The Author
