Why Trump Is Rattling Colombia, Mexico and Cuba After the Maduro Capture

A fresh diplomatic storm has erupted between the United States, Denmark and Greenland after US President Donald Trump reiterated that Washington “absolutely needs” Greenland for defence. The remarks, made on January 4, prompted a sharp rebuttal from Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who said the US has “no right to annex” any part of the Danish kingdom.

The exchange is not an isolated spat. It reflects a year-long escalation in US rhetoric and actions around Greenland, including suggestions of acquisition, hints at coercion, and allegations of covert influence operations. Here is what explains the standoff.

Why Greenland matters so much to the United States

American interest in Greenland is rooted firmly in geostrategy. The island’s location in the Arctic makes it a critical military vantage point between North America, Europe and Asia. During the Cold War, Greenland served as a frontline outpost for monitoring Soviet missile launches.

Today, the US operates the Pituffik Space Base — formerly Thule Air Base — in north-west Greenland. From here, Washington can track missile activity from Russia, China and North Korea, and maintain early-warning and space surveillance systems. The base also enhances US naval and air mobility across the Arctic, Atlantic and Eurasian theatres.

Strategic anxiety has sharpened as Russia and China expand their Arctic footprints. Research by Arctic security institutes shows both countries increasing military infrastructure and patrols in the region, raising concerns in Washington about access and control in a rapidly warming Arctic.

The resource dimension: rare earths and the Arctic future

Beyond defence, Greenland holds vast reserves of rare earth minerals — essential for smartphones, electric vehicles, renewable energy systems and advanced weapons. China currently dominates global rare earth supply chains, a reality that has heightened US interest in alternative sources.

Although Greenland passed a law in 2021 banning uranium mining, the island’s broader mineral potential remains significant. As Arctic ice melts and extraction becomes easier, Greenland’s resources have become part of a larger contest over future supply chains.

A long history of American attempts to acquire Greenland

Trump’s remarks may sound unprecedented, but US interest in Greenland is not new. As early as 1867, US officials identified the island’s strategic and resource value. During World War II, American forces entered Greenland after Nazi Germany occupied Denmark.

In 1946, US President Harry Truman formally offered $100 million to buy Greenland — an offer Denmark rejected. A 1951 defence agreement nonetheless allowed the US to build and operate military bases there, ensuring a permanent American presence.

During his first term, Trump revived the idea of acquisition, describing it as a “large real estate deal”. When Frederiksen dismissed the proposal as “absurd”, Trump cancelled a planned visit to Denmark — an episode that strained ties well before the current crisis.

Why Denmark and Greenland are alarmed now

What distinguishes the current episode from earlier rhetoric is context. Trump’s latest comments came days after US forces captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro — a move that has heightened fears of unilateral American action.

Danish and Greenlandic concerns intensified after a report by Denmark’s public broadcaster DR alleged covert US influence operations in Greenland. According to the report, individuals linked to Trump sought to cultivate political and business networks and identify Greenlanders sympathetic to US control — possibly laying groundwork for a secessionist movement.

Denmark’s security service, PET, acknowledged that Greenland is vulnerable to influence campaigns “especially in the current situation”. For Copenhagen, this crosses a red line from diplomacy into interference.

The sovereignty question at the heart of the dispute

Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Danish kingdom, with its own parliament and government, though defence and foreign policy remain with Copenhagen. While many Greenlanders support eventual independence, there is overwhelming rejection of annexation by any external power.

Trump’s comments — coupled with provocative imagery shared by his aides, including maps of Greenland draped in the US flag — have reinforced fears that Washington views sovereignty as negotiable when strategic interests are at stake.

Has the US acquired territory this way before?

Historically, the US has expanded through purchases. The Louisiana Purchase of 1803 doubled American territory. In 1867, the US bought Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million, and in 1917 it purchased the Danish West Indies — now the US Virgin Islands.

But these acquisitions occurred in vastly different geopolitical eras. Modern international law, self-determination norms and alliance politics make any comparable move today far more destabilising — especially against a NATO ally.

Why the Greenland dispute matters beyond the Arctic

The standoff is about more than Greenland. It reflects a broader shift in US foreign policy rhetoric — one that blends strategic anxiety, resource competition and a willingness to test long-standing norms.

For Denmark and Greenland, the issue is existential: sovereignty and self-rule. For Europe, it raises uncomfortable questions about alliance reliability. And for the Arctic, it signals that a region once governed by cooperation may increasingly be shaped by power politics.

As Frederiksen’s response made clear, Copenhagen and Nuuk see Trump’s language not as negotiation, but as a challenge to the basic rules of international order — one they are determined to resist.