BREAKINGVIEWS-Trump’s key barrier to best Greenland deal: Trump

By Yawen Chen

LONDON, Jan 8 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Donald Trump’s interest in Greenland keeps running into an odd reality: the United States already has most of what it needs from Denmark’s autonomous territory. That doesn’t make the U.S. president’s stance entirely irrational. Instead, it reflects how he himself is upending the rules-based order that would normally make the status quo sufficient.

Given Greenland only has 57,000 residents and a $3 billion economy dominated by fishing, Washington could easily seize it militarily – or try to bribe Greenlanders. But 85% of them oppose becoming part of the U.S. And such a move would permanently poison relations with the European Union, and upend NATO alliances.

From a security perspective, annexation adds little. The U.S. already operates military facilities in Greenland under a defence agreement dating back to 1951, allowing it access to sites like the Pituffik Space Base for missile warning, space surveillance, and Arctic monitoring. Danish officials, who share U.S. concerns about Russian and Chinese activity in the region, have already said they would accommodate Washington’s requests for additional access if asked.

The commercial case is even weaker. Greenland is said to contain 25 of the European Union’s 34 designated critical raw materials, but mining remains marginal and rare earth production nil. Severe weather, limited infrastructure and long distances from refining capacity currently make extraction uneconomic, Capital Economics says. U.S. companies, meanwhile, are already permitted to invest.

Any seizure would also imply a huge bill. Denmark provides Greenland with an annual grant of 3.9 billion Danish crowns – $511 million – roughly half of Greenland’s public revenue and close to 20% of GDP. Any change in sovereignty would raise the question of who replaces that support.

Trump could avoid any bother by just updating the 1951 agreement. A new version could adjust cost-sharing and access in the U.S.’s favour. Similarly, the president could work out an economic deal that helps lower mining costs and attracts investment into the sector, perhaps by subsidising its own firms.

Why doesn’t he, then? Part of it, according to political advisory firm Signum Global, is that there’s a difference between being allowed into Greenland, and using the country to veto local Chinese or Russian activity. Trump is fixated on the latter, perhaps because climate-related reductions in sea ice are opening new strategically important passageways in the Arctic.

A bigger issue is what Trump himself is doing to the world order. Naked power grabs like the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro reflect his spin on the Monroe Doctrine, which allowed the U.S. to boss its backyard. If international treaties and norms no longer apply, then it counterintuitively makes some sense to assume even a beefed-up agreement over Greenland might prove flaky. Still, the island’s citizens, Denmark and Europe alike can be forgiven for taking a dim view.

Follow Yawen Chen on Bluesky and LinkedIn.

CONTEXT NEWS

The United States said on January 7 that President Donald Trump is discussing options for acquiring Greenland, including potential use of the U.S. military, in a revival of his ambition to control the strategic island despite European objections.

Trump sees acquiring Greenland as a U.S. national security priority necessary to “deter our adversaries in the Arctic region”, the White House said in a statement.

“The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the commander-in-chief’s disposal,” the White House said.