GREENLAND & NATIONAL SECURITYTrump Eyes Greenland — but Does the U.S. Actually Need It for National Security?
Some experts argue that a deal involving Denmark selling or ceding territory to the U.S. would be costly and unnecessary, particularly since the U.S. already has extensive access to Greenland.
President Donald Trump’s first floated the idea that the United States should acquire Greenland, a massive, ice-covered territory controlled by Denmark in the Arctic, in 2019.
Now, after what his administration touted as a successful covert operation to apprehend and arrest Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Trump doubled down on his desire to bring the world’s largest island into America’s orbit, with the White House saying the territory is vital to U.S. national security interests.
However, some experts argue that a deal involving Denmark selling or ceding territory to the United States would be costly and unnecessary, particularly since the U.S. already has extensive access — both militarily and economically — to Greenland through a Cold War-era agreement.
“The door is already wide open,” said Mai’a Cross, dean’s professor of political science, international affairs and diplomacy at Northeastern University, and an expert on international relations, space diplomacy and European security. “The U.S. has an open invitation to increase the size of its military base and potentially have other military bases there.”
It’s through that agreement, called the Defense of Greenland Agreement, that the U.S. can widely deploy forces and equipment to provide for the “collective defense” of the territory, as well as the broader North Atlantic Treaty region — a defense network that includes the U.S. mainland.
The 1951 pact requires that the U.S. respect Danish sovereignty and allow for the free movement of Greenland’s inhabitants, while giving U.S. officials the authority to prepare and upgrade areas for military use; build, operate and secure bases and support infrastructure; station and sustain U.S. personnel; control military-related air and maritime movements in designated areas; and improve ports, harbors and access channels to support operations.
For that reason, Cross is skeptical that a Trump-style deal could be worked out that would radically alter the status quo, which she said involves close cooperation over shared security goals, investments in Greenland’s natural resources sector and ongoing trade more broadly. The Danes have long welcomed business cooperation in its mineral and economic sectors while insisting that the U.S. respect the sovereignty of the 57,000 residents, she said.
The Trump administration and Danish officials are set to meet next week to open a dialogue over the future of Greenland. If anything, Cross said the sides might just strengthen the existing agreement, giving the United States greater operational authority on the island without infringing on the sovereignty of Greenland’s local government.
