...
By Barney Henderson
Content Director
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
Donald Trump has said he will seek "immediate negotiations to acquire Greenland" and "won't use force" during his speech at Davos.
"It's the U.S. alone that can protect this giant mass of land, this giant piece of ice, develop it and improve it," he said Wednesday morning.
His position on the U.S. taking over Greenland has shocked America's closest allies and caused panic throughout NATO.
Read More on News
However, it makes strategic sense for a lot of reasons, both for America, her allies and the wider world.
Greenland already sits at the heart of U.S. security planning. The American military has operated there since World War II, and the U.S. Space Force now runs critical missile warning and space surveillance systems from Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule).
As Arctic ice melts and Russia and China expand their polar ambitions, Greenland is no longer peripheral—it is central terrain in the contest for control of the High North.
Trump: 'I don't want to use force' to take Greenland
In a move that will go some way to reassure America's NATO allies, the U.S. President said he would not use "excessive strength and force" to take Greenland. This was the first time he had indicated there would be limits to his mission to claim the vast Arctic territory, and it marked a subtle but significant shift in tone.
...
For European capitals already uneasy about Washington’s renewed talk of territorial acquisition, the remark suggested that any U.S. push for Greenland would be political and economic rather than military. That matters. Denmark is a treaty ally, and Greenland sits at the heart of NATO’s northern flank. Any hint of coercion would risk fracturing alliance unity at a moment when Western cohesion is under strain from Russia’s war in Ukraine and China’s expanding Arctic footprint.
By ruling out "excessive force," the president appeared to leave the door open to negotiation, consent, and compensation—signals aimed as much at Copenhagen and Nuuk as at Brussels. The message was clear: this would not be an invasion.
Why is this happening?
Trump framed Greenland as a "core national security interest" and pushed for "immediate negotiations" to bring it under U.S. control.
In the same speech, he leaned hard into grievance-history—claiming that "without us, you’d be speaking German and Japanese perhaps," then pivoting to Greenland by insisting "no one can secure Greenland apart from the U.S.," and mocking Denmark’s wartime collapse as part of his case for American custodianship.
Strategically, the argument isn’t crazy—even if the delivery is. The U.S. already has the infrastructure foothold at Pituffik and a formal legal framework with Denmark that has governed defense access since 1951.
And even Trump’s NATO critics at Davos conceded the underlying Arctic problem: NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said, "I think President Trump is right…We need to defend the Arctic," adding that U.S. safety requires "a safe Arctic, a safe Atlantic, and a safe Europe."
...
What is the Right saying?
On the hawkish right, Sen. Tom Cotton argued years ago that acquiring Greenland would "secure vital strategic interests" and even claimed it fits "American—and Danish—diplomatic traditions."
More populist voices go further: Tucker Carlson called U.S. taking Greenland a "huge victory for the world and for the United States" and treated NATO’s potential collapse as a positive.
And Trump himself keeps repeating the ultimatum logic—warning "we are going to do something on Greenland whether they like it or not," because otherwise "Russia or China will take over."
What is the Left saying?
Liberals hear a land-grab wrapped in nationalist stand-up. Gavin Newsom mocked Europe’s willingness to indulge Trump, calling the whole posture "not diplomacy, it’s stupidity."
Senate Democrats are aiming at Trump’s coercive tools, with Chuck Schumer blasting the Greenland-linked tariff threats as "foolhardy" and deriding Trump’s "quixotic quest to take over Greenland."
...
What happens next?
Expect three tracks at once: diplomacy, domestic backlash, and alliance damage control. Diplomatically, Trump’s "immediate negotiations" push will collide with Greenland’s flat refusals and Denmark’s insistence that Greenland’s future is decided by Greenlanders—not by Davos applause lines.
Domestically, Democrats will keep trying to block Greenland-related tariff escalation while framing the whole saga as reckless theater. And inside NATO, leaders like Rutte will attempt to separate Trump’s abrasive method from the alliance’s real Arctic vulnerability—essentially saying: yes, the Arctic must be defended; no, you can’t annex allies to do it.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines