For decades, Greenland was a strategic asset quietly managed, rarely discussed outside defense circles. Then came Donald Trump, and suddenly Greenland was on the front page of newspapers around the world. That alone tells us something important: Trump did not invent Greenland’s importance, but he forced the world to talk about it. The question is whether his method advanced U.S. interests, or undermined them.
Why Greenland Matters to the United States
Greenland’s importance is not symbolic or speculative. It is structural.
Geographically, Greenland sits astride the shortest routes between North America, Europe, and Russia. As Arctic ice recedes, new maritime corridors are opening, turning the Arctic from a frozen buffer into a navigable strategic theater. Whoever shapes this space influences global trade routes, submarine movement, and military reach.
Militarily, Greenland is indispensable to U.S. early-warning and space defense systems. The U.S. presence at Pituffik Space Base anchors missile detection, satellite tracking, and northern air defense. No other location can replicate its value.
Economically, Greenland contains rare earth elements and critical minerals essential to modern defense systems, semiconductors, and AI infrastructure, resources that China, in particular, has been aggressively positioning itself to control elsewhere.
From a U.S. strategic perspective, Greenland is not a luxury. It is a keystone.
Trump’s Approach: Diagnosis Right, Treatment Wrong
Trump was correct about one thing: Greenland’s strategic value had been dangerously under-discussed and under-prioritized. By openly raising the issue,even clumsily,he shattered complacency in Washington, Europe, and the Arctic world. In that sense, he succeeded in making Greenland impossible to ignore.
But Trump framed the issue in transactional and confrontational terms: ownership, purchase, leverage, and implicit threats. That approach immediately alienated both Greenland’s population and Denmark, turning a shared security conversation into a sovereignty dispute.
This was not merely a stylistic problem. It was a strategic one.
By treating Greenland as an object to be acquired rather than a partner to be cultivated, Trump weakened U.S. influence precisely where trust and consent matter most. His approach triggered nationalist resistance, hardened political positions in Copenhagen, and increased suspicion in Nuuk-outcomes that reduce, rather than expand, American leverage.
The Better Alternative Trump Ignored
The irony is that the United States never needed to own Greenland to secure it.
A more effective strategy would have focused on deep integration without formal control:
- Long-term basing agreements expanded quietly
- Massive U.S. investment in Greenlandic infrastructure, education, and healthcare
- Joint Arctic security frameworks with Denmark
- Guaranteed local economic benefits tied to U.S. defense and resource projects
- Environmental stewardship to counter Chinese influence narratives
This is how influence is actually built in the 21st century, not through purchase offers, but through dependence, alignment, and legitimacy.
The United States already enjoys Greenland’s security alignment through Denmark’s membership in NATO. Strengthening that arrangement would have delivered functional control without provoking backlash or setting dangerous global precedents.
In short, Trump aimed for ownership when, at this point in time, influence was both sufficient and attainable.
Is Greenland Vulnerable Without U.S. Ownership?
No [unless Denmark becomes majority Islamist, ed.] but it is vulnerable without sustained U.S. engagement.
Greenland is not defenseless. It is embedded in the Western security architecture and protected by NATO. However, Denmark alone lacks the capacity to fully monitor and secure Greenland’s vast territory, especially as Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic increases.
The real risk is not Greenland slipping away overnight, it is gradual erosion through neglect. On that point, Trump’s instincts were correct.
What Happens Next
Trump’s intervention has permanently changed the conversation. Greenland will not fade back into obscurity.
Going forward, several trends are likely:
- The U.S. will expand its Arctic footprint, regardless of who occupies the White House
- Denmark will seek deeper U.S. partnership while defending formal sovereignty
- Greenland will leverage its newfound attention to extract greater autonomy, investment, and influence
- China’s Arctic ambitions will face tighter scrutiny and resistance
Ironically, future U.S. administrations may achieve Trump’s strategic objectives precisely because he made Greenland impossible to ignore, while correcting the diplomatic errors he made in pursuing them.
Final Assessment
Trump was right about why Greenland matters.
He was wrong about how to act on that reality.
By choosing confrontation over coalition-building, he turned a shared security interest into a political spectacle. Yet even so, he succeeded in forcing a necessary reckoning.
Greenland does not need to be owned to be secured.
It needs to be engaged, invested in, and anchored firmly in the Western alliance.
That is the path the United States is now likely to follow, long after the headlines fade.
Dr. Avi Perry is a former professor at Northwestern University, a former Bell Labs researcher and executive. He served as Vice President at NMS Communications. He represented the United States on the UN’s International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Standards Committee, where he authored significant portions of the G.168 standard. He is the author of the thriller novel 72 VIRGINS, a Cambridge University Press book on VOICE QUALITY IN WIRELESS NETWORKS. More recently, he published: UNLOCKED: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO LEARNING AND APPLYING AI TO SOLVE REAL WORLD PROBLEMS, and A WINNER’S PLAYBOOK FOR STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE: WHY SMART PEOPLE KEEP LOSING, and is a regular op-ed contributor to The Jerusalem Post and Israel National News