On January 7, White House Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt stated that U.S. President Donald Trump is considering various options that could allow Washington to gain control over Greenland, including the use of armed force. According to her, control of the island “is a priority of U.S. national security and is vital to containing our adversaries in the Arctic region.” The Times analyzed the possible scenarios for how the situation could develop.
First option: military intervention
The United States, as the world’s leading military power, is theoretically capable of establishing control over Greenland by force, The Times notes. The likelihood of direct resistance from Greenland itself, Denmark, or their European allies is considered low. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has previously stated that such a conflict would mean “the end of NATO.”
Experts emphasize, however, that occupying the territory of a formal ally within the Alliance is fundamentally different from operations conducted outside the Euro-Atlantic space. Greenland is located at a considerable distance from the United States, and the U.S. military has limited experience in conducting large-scale operations in extreme Arctic conditions. Even in the event of a successful takeover, Washington could face difficulties fully exploiting the island’s potential if a significant part of the population were to perceive the American presence as an occupation.
Moreover, such a scenario could have serious consequences for the entire European security system. Russia and China, analysts believe, would intensify efforts to protect their interests in the Arctic, which could lead to rising tensions and an arms race in the region.
Second option: economic pressure
Most analysts consider it more likely that the United States would seek Denmark’s consent to a transfer of control over Greenland without direct military intervention, relying instead on political and economic leverage. The key instrument in this case could be financial investment. Greenland’s population is about 57,000, and its GDP is roughly $3.3 billion, making the island’s economy heavily dependent on subsidies from Copenhagen. Significant financial inflows from the United States could increase the appeal of American proposals for local elites and the population.
During Donald Trump’s first presidential term, the United States had already allocated funds for Greenland’s economic development, educational programs, and the work of American consultants. The U.S. consulate in Nuuk was reopened, and initiatives were launched to train specialists for the mining sector.
At the same time, these steps have provoked a sharp reaction in Denmark. Danish media have discussed reports of alleged attempts by U.S. citizens linked to the White House to encourage separatist sentiments in Greenland. Denmark’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued an official protest, while the U.S. State Department stated that the government does not control the actions of private individuals.
Third option: free association
On January 5, The Economist reported that U.S. officials are considering the possibility of concluding a free association agreement with Greenland, modeled on those with Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands. Such a framework would preserve Greenland’s formal sovereignty while granting the United States effective control over defense and military presence. In return, Greenland would gain access to duty-free trade with the United States.
Implementing this scenario would only be possible if Greenland achieved independence, which would require the consent of the Danish parliament. Analysts note that the benefits for the United States would be primarily strategic and symbolic, while for Greenland such an agreement could bring substantial economic advantages.
Fourth option: maintaining the status quo
Another scenario envisions Greenland gradually moving toward greater autonomy while simultaneously drawing closer to the United States. In this case, the island would exploit contradictions between Washington and Copenhagen to obtain additional economic and political benefits. The United States, for its part, could expand its military presence and involvement in the commercial exploitation of Greenland’s natural resources, as well as exert limited influence over the island’s domestic politics. Denmark would retain formal sovereignty over the territory.
As The Times notes, regardless of which scenario is chosen, U.S. interest in Greenland reflects the growing strategic importance of the Arctic.
