CIVICUS discusses the USA’s ambitions towards Greenland with Rachael Lorna Johnstone, Professor of Law at the University of Akureyri in Iceland and the University of Greenland, and Fulbright Arctic IV Scholar.

In recent weeks, Donald Trump sparked global interest in Greenland as he asserted that the USA should control the island, highlighting its strategic value and rich resources. Trump’s comments, including a refusal to rule out using military force or economic sanctions, raised concerns among Greenlandic leaders. Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, firmly rejected this external interference, and its leaders asserted Greenlanders’ right to self-determination.

What’s Greenland’s political status?

Greenland’s legal status is complex but not contested. It is part of the sovereign territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, alongside Denmark and the Faroe Islands, and governed by its constitution. Greenlanders are recognised as a People under international law, as affirmed by Denmark in the Self-Government Act of 2009.

This enables Greenlanders to determine their own destiny. Greenland could potentially vote to become an independent state or choose a free association model with Denmark or any other country, negotiating shared defence infrastructure, trade deals or free movement of people, for example. Greenland could also opt to continue with the current model of self-government within the Kingdom of Denmark or, although unlikely given current political sentiments, return to an older model of integration with Denmark.

Why is the USA so interested in Greenland?

Greenland is back on the US agenda, with top US officials, particularly Trump, showing renewed interest based mainly on two reasons: military security and economic security.

The USA has had a presence in Greenland since the Second World War, when Nazi Germany occupied Denmark. At the time, with no legitimate Danish government to report to, Denmark’s ambassador to the USA independently negotiated a US military presence in Greenland. This arrangement was later formalised in a 1951 USA-Denmark treaty, and since then the USA has maintained an air base — now a space base — at Pituffik in the northwest. This base serves both Greenland’s security and the USA’s strategic interests by controlling the western flanks of the Atlantic and northern Arctic Oceans. So, even if Greenland’s defence is formally controlled by Denmark, in practice decisions are negotiated between Denmark, Greenland and the USA.

On the economic side, Greenland has very large deposits of critical minerals and other resources that are necessary for energy and technology, including telecommunications. There are currently 78 active mining concessions, though most are still in the exploration phase. Only six have exploitation permits and two are operational. So far, Canadian and British companies dominate the sector and US private investment has been minimal.

The current global supply of these resources is largely dominated by Chinese firms, which gives them diplomatic leverage. China has already restricted exports of some critical minerals to the USA in retaliation for trade tariffs, so the USA is looking for new suppliers. In this search, Greenland appears as a secure and stable alternative. As Trump said, the USA would prefer a ‘friendly’ country under US ‘control and ownership’ to provide these materials.

However, mining in Greenland is high-risk and expensive due to limited infrastructure. When you start digging, there’s no guarantee the market will still need what you find by the time production begins. Prices could collapse or technology could change.

How has the USA has tried to gain influence over Greenland in the past?

The USA’s interest in Greenland isn’t new. Under the Monroe Doctrine – which holds that the entire western hemisphere should be under US influence – the USA made several offers to buy Greenland. The first came in 1867, after the purchase of Alaska, but Denmark refused. Similar offers followed, including from President Truman after the Second World War, but they were all rejected. In 1916, the USA bought the Danish West Indies, now the US Virgin Islands, and as part of that deal, recognised Danish sovereignty over Greenland and renounced any claim.

In 1932, the Permanent Court of International Justice – the League of Nations’ court and predecessor to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – confirmed Greenland as Danish territory. But international law has evolved. Today, the principle of self-determination means that the People of Greenland, not Denmark or any other country, have the right to decide the nature of their relations with other countries, including whether they want to be independent. As Judge Dillard of the ICJ famously said in a 1975 case involving Western Sahara, ‘It is for the people to determine the destiny of the territory and not the territory the destiny of the people’.

Given the current climate, do you think there’s a real possibility of annexation?

Annexation by force seems highly unlikely, as it would constitute an act of aggression by one NATO member state against another, something that has never happened and would likely make the alliance collapse. Not only Denmark but the entire European Union would oppose such a move.

Cooperation between Denmark, Greenland and the USA has been ongoing for decades, and I don’t expect that to change. Perhaps the intensity of the current discussion, and some of the more fiery or even careless language being used could open the door to a deeper and calmer conversation about increasing cooperation on both security and investment.

During a recent hearing at the US Senate, it was interesting to listen to many senators say that any alliance would have to be agreed upon by Greenlanders. They also spoke about diplomatic strategies to achieve US military and economic security goals rather than discuss annexation.

What’s Greenland’s position?

Given recent statements from Greenland’s elected representatives, it seems clear they wish to preserve their relationship with the USA and perhaps enhance it through trade and investment. However, there is no indication they intend to ‘become American’ or pursue anything beyond a cooperative partnership.