The White House is actively developing options to acquire Greenland—including through diplomatic, economic, and even military means—marking a dramatic escalation of President Donald Trump’s long-standing territorial ambition and triggering alarm among European allies and NATO partners.
According to U.S. officials and multiple international media outlets, including BBC News, Reuters, and CNN, senior Trump advisers are now formally debating pathways to U.S. control of the Arctic island, which has been an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark since 1953.
On January 6, 2026, the White House publicly confirmed that acquisition strategies are under discussion and stated that “the use of the U.S. military is always an option”—a remark that has been interpreted by European leaders as a direct threat to a fellow NATO member’s sovereignty.
“The U.S. is adamant that, aside from the Indo-Pacific, Washington expects to be truly hegemonic in the western hemisphere,” said Klaus Dodds, Professor of Geopolitics at Royal Holloway, University of London, in an interview with High North News. “This is underpinned by a sense that the U.S. must grab land and resources where it can—to resist China and any other competitor.”
The push comes on the heels of the U.S. military’s capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro—a move widely seen as a demonstration of Washington’s willingness to enforce unilateral control in its perceived sphere of influence. Analysts, including those cited by CNBC and The Guardian, now describe this emerging doctrine as the “Donroe Doctrine”—a 21st-century reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine that emphasizes territorial acquisition as a tool of strategic dominance.
Greenland’s vast reserves of rare earth minerals—critical for advanced electronics, defence systems, and renewable energy—along with its strategic location between North America and Europe, make it a high-value asset in the intensifying U.S.-China rivalry. CNBC reports that over 30% of the world’s known rare earth deposits lie beneath Greenland’s ice sheet.
But the proposal has been met with fierce resistance. On January 6, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen issued a stark warning: “Any attempt by the United States to take over Greenland by force would mean the end of NATO.” In a joint statement, leaders from France, Germany, Italy, the UK, Spain, Poland, and Denmark declared: “Greenland belongs to its people. Its future is not for sale.”
Greenland’s own government echoed this stance. Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen called U.S. rhetoric “completely and utterly unacceptable,” noting that while many Greenlanders support greater independence from Denmark, there is no appetite for joining the United States.
The crisis has exposed unprecedented fractures within NATO. As Al Jazeera highlighted, the alliance was designed to defend against external threats—not to manage aggression between members. “We face a situation where the largest NATO member in terms of military power has threatened the territorial integrity of two other member states,” Dodds warned.
Even within the U.S., the move has drawn criticism. Stephen Miller, a senior Trump adviser cited by The Guardian, reportedly championed the acquisition plan as part of a broader “American renewal” agenda, but congressional leaders from both parties have expressed concern over the legal and diplomatic ramifications.
Prediction markets, including Polymarket, have begun assigning tangible odds to a U.S. takeover by 2027—reflecting how a once-dismissed fantasy is now being treated as a plausible policy outcome.
Yet legal and political barriers remain immense. The 1951 U.S.-Denmark Defence Agreement already grants Washington extensive rights at Thule Air Base, Greenland’s only U.S. military installation. As Dodds noted, “There is plenty of latitude” within existing frameworks—making a forced acquisition appear less a strategic necessity and more, in his words, a project of “ego-politics.”
For now, the world watches an unprecedented test of alliance solidarity—one that could redefine the limits of American power and the future of the rules-based international order.