The Greenland Crisis: Why a US Invasion Would Be Strategically Unnecessary

Over the last four days, President Trump's obsession with Greenland has escalated from rhetoric to concrete action. After more than a year building his case for US control over the Danish territory, Trump has levied a ten-percent tariff against NATO member states rallying around Denmark, sent an extraordinary message to Norway's Prime Minister questioning territorial ownership rights and declaring that "the World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland," and outright refused to rule out taking Greenland by force. While conversations about NATO alliance implications, Greenland's sovereignty, and global power balance are all worth having, a fundamental reality undermines the entire premise of Trump's approach: for all practical purposes, the United States already controls Greenland to the extent that a US invasion isn't just legally and diplomatically problematic—it's completely strategically unnecessary.

Key Takeaways

• The United States already has extensive military rights in Greenland through the Greenland Defense Agreement signed in the 1950s, allowing it to build unlimited bases, deploy unlimited personnel, and control ship and aircraft movements without needing to annex the territory.
• Trump has escalated from rhetoric to concrete action over four days, including imposing a 10% tariff on NATO allies supporting Denmark, sending extraordinary messages to Norway's Prime Minister, and refusing to rule out military force to take Greenland.
• Greenland's strategic importance stems from its Arctic location between Russia and the US, its role in nuclear missile trajectories, expected climate change impacts that will open Arctic shipping lanes, and anticipated exposure of vast natural resource deposits including rare-earth elements.
• Current US deployment in Greenland is minimal at only 150 troops at Pituffik Space Base, down from a Cold War peak of 15,000 troops across Greenland—a reduction that occurred partly during Trump's first term.
• Denmark's defense of Greenland has been inadequate with only 130-150 personnel at Joint Arctic Command and a small naval squadron, though this doesn't justify annexation since the US can freely expand its presence under existing agreements.
• The US could achieve all stated national security objectives by expanding its existing presence at Pituffik Space Base, rebuilding old base infrastructure, deploying naval assets including submarines, establishing air patrols with its unmatched tanker fleet, and negotiating mineral rights deals—all without territorial acquisition.

The Strategic Case for Greenland

On a fundamental level, it is not unreasonable for the United States to want to ensure direct military control over Greenland. While strategically unnecessary to invade and capture the territory, it's far from irrational for Washington to prioritize guarding this strategically significant island. Geographically, Greenland represents a major territory above the Arctic Circle, positioned midway between Russia and the continental United States. It's a place that intercontinental ballistic missiles would overfly in the event of all-out nuclear war, making it an ideal location to position both intelligence assets and nuclear-capable warfighting equipment like bombers and submarines. Russian submarines and ships already operate in this area, adding urgency to American strategic considerations.

Just as important, Greenland is expected to be one of the places that changes most in the next several decades due to climate change—a transformation with profound implications for US interests. As the Arctic warms up and sea ice melts, the Arctic Ocean becomes navigable, meaning that whichever countries can establish control over the Arctic today will be able to reap the rewards of global shipping tomorrow. Additionally, as the ice covering Greenland melts, it's expected to expose immense natural resource deposits, from oil and gas to rare-earth elements and other materials fundamental for global supply chains. For all these reasons, it's quite reasonable that the United States could look at Greenland in today's hyper-competitive geopolitical environment and conclude that the only way to ensure that adversaries like Russia or China can't co-opt US interests in the Arctic decades from now is to lock down control of the territory today.

Denmark's Inadequate Defense Posture

Credit can also be given to Washington on another facet of this issue: as of right now, the nation of Denmark and the rest of the NATO alliance have taken a very hands-off approach to protecting Greenland. Before Trump ratcheted up his rhetoric around the island, Denmark had only deployed roughly 130 to 150 military and civilian personnel to its Joint Arctic Command, watching over the Faroe Islands as well as Greenland itself. It assigned its 1st Squadron of the Royal Danish Navy to patrol duties, but the 1st Squadron only comprises a small handful of patrolling frigates and cutters, none of which are particularly well-armed.

The largest force that any of Denmark's NATO allies had stationed on Greenland comprised only about 150 troops. NATO forces conduct air and sea patrols in the area, but even though they're more frequent than they used to be, they're hardly sufficient to guard over the entire territory. Even as tensions with the United States have ratcheted upward, Denmark has only sent some two hundred additional troops, while NATO advance forces preparing for potential military exercises there only number in the low dozens. In short, if the United States considers the defense of Greenland to be a priority in the 2020s, then it's not hard to see how Washington would look at the territory's current defenses and conclude that they're incomplete, especially at a time when Washington has already derided European nations for their lack of military preparedness.

The Greenland Defense Agreement: America's Existing Control

If all of that seems like a fairly sound, logical-enough defense of US ambitions in Greenland, it's here that America's logic starts to come apart. Regardless of the United States' attempts to frame Denmark as a barrier to American national and economic security by refusing to cede control of Greenland, that position simply doesn't align with reality. The United States, for all practical purposes, already has the freedom to do whatever it wants in Greenland—and, in fact, it can position so many American military assets on the territory that it can basically control Greenland by default.

Since the 1950s, the United States has been party to the Greenland Defense Agreement, a pact that it signed with Denmark and the other founding members of the NATO alliance. That agreement may not provide the US a sovereignty claim over Greenland, but it guarantees just about everything short of that. The agreement is very broadly written, allowing the US latitude to build, install, maintain, and operate as many of its own military bases across Greenland as it wants. At those bases, the US can house as many personnel as it wants; it can exert control over all movements and operations of ships and aircraft in basically any area that it chooses.

Although a recent amendment to the agreement in 2004 gave Greenlanders a say over US military operations when they risk impacting the local population, that's practically a non-issue. Greenland spans a geographic area nearly four times larger than Texas, over double the size of Nigeria or Pakistan, and roughly as large as Mexico—but it's home to only about 57,000 Greenlanders, most of whom are concentrated in just twelve settlements with a population greater than one thousand. This is not a settled place, and because of the immense latitude given to the United States in its security agreements with Denmark, it can essentially do as it pleases, as long as it avoids basing operations in that small handful of locations. Historical precedent matters too; broadly, Denmark has been very hesitant to push back against the US when it seeks to deploy troops in Greenland, and right now, in the midst of an exceptionally tense security crisis with Washington, Denmark would likely rejoice at the chance to solve all of this by simply welcoming American troops onto Greenland's soil.

America's Minimal Current Deployment

There is a decent argument to say that the United States should prioritize a greater military foothold in Greenland, but there is no reason that the US would need to purchase the territory, take it over militarily, or otherwise annex it into the United States in order to do so. Anything that the United States could do on a Greenland under its direct control, it can already do without essentially destroying the NATO alliance. And it's worth really emphasizing that between all the steps America could take today to secure Greenland, it's hardly taken any of them.

The largest NATO-ally troop deployment on Greenland comprises only about 150 troops at any given time—and that's America's current deployment, stationed at Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base. As that name would suggest, the base is currently under control of America's Space Force, a military branch that Trump created—and while America's deployment to Greenland had been downsizing since the 1990s, Trump helped to shrink that deployment to its current state during his first term.

At its peak, Thule Air Base was home to some six thousand troops in continuous rotation during the Cold War, with America's troop presence across Greenland cresting at 15,000. Those are figures that the US could decide to replicate whenever it wants under the current order of things within the NATO alliance. Rebuilding bases, repositioning troops, expanding its capabilities into the Arctic—these are all challenging tasks. But none of them get any easier simply because Greenland would hypothetically be a US territory instead of a Danish one.

Alternative Motivations Behind Trump's Push

From a strict national-security perspective, there is no reason for the United States to attempt a takeover of Greenland, whether peacefully or militarily. But before examining what the United States could easily do instead, it's worth asking a question that could shift the calculus in a different direction: is there another reason that Trump wants control over Greenland so badly?

Outside analysts haven't hesitated in voicing their suspicions. Some claim that all of Trump's Greenland talk should be read as a challenge to the NATO alliance, similar to his talk of expanding the military spending of member states, which ultimately led NATO to expand its defense-spending expectations massively. Others suggest that the NATO alliance itself may be Trump's target, and that Trump might see an intra-alliance crisis over Greenland as the quickest, easiest way to break the connection between Washington and its NATO allies.

Perhaps Washington's primary goal is resource extraction, and it fears that if Denmark retains sovereignty over Greenland or Greenland becomes independent, then it won't be able to extract what it wants, when it wants. Perhaps, as a recent analysis by The New Republic suggests, Trump is motivated by pressure from American oligarchs who have their own designs on Greenland in the long term. Perhaps Trump's recent remarks about expanding American territory are the key, and he sees an Alaska-style or Hawaii-style territorial acquisition as being so valuable to his presidential legacy that it's worth the diplomatic and strategic fallout. Or, as some of Trump's most cynical opponents have suggested, maybe this is simply about the fact that Greenland looks big on a map, and in Trump's mind, bigger is better.

If any of those outside motivators are what's really driving Trump's calculus, then his recent posture toward Greenland would at least make a bit more sense. Or, that is to say, it would explain why America's current leeway to do what it wants militarily with Greenland simply doesn't seem to factor into Trump's decision-making. If this is about something other than national and economic security, then national-security-based and economic-security-based logic will fall short. But, at least for now, Trump and his administration continue to claim national security, especially, as their key motivator for acquiring Greenland. If, indeed, that's the case, then a territorial acquisition of Greenland is just unnecessary—and it's certainly not worth the schism that will follow between the US and the nations that have been among its closest allies since the start of the Cold War.

A Practical Path Forward Without Annexation

If the United States is uncertain and has some deep, gnawing sense that direct control over Greenland is inexplicably of paramount importance, then the US could do a lot to test out that theory, try expanding its role in Greenland under the current set of treaties, and then explore the idea of annexation if unforeseen obstacles do eventually get in the way.

An easy first step would be for the US to re-expand its deployment at Pituffik Space Base, perhaps transitioning it into a joint space-and-airbase, and returning troop deployment numbers to the thousands rather than the mere hundreds. Given that Pituffik is already the world's northernmost deep-water port, the US could base naval assets there: perhaps a regular, secret rotation of ballistic-missile submarines, or the fleets of battleships and icebreakers that Trump has been so intent on acquiring. Outside that base, the US could regain control of the old base infrastructure that still exists in Greenland and build new bases, especially by building them in a way that'll host small troop deployments today but will be prepared to host much larger forces if either short-term emergencies or long-term ice melt create the circumstances for a surge.

The US could also go about leveraging its assets to protect Greenland in ways that only the US can. Take air patrol, for example, where the US is correct to be concerned that European forces may struggle to patrol the skies above Danish territory. With such vast distances to patrol, aerial refueling support is critical, and the US has a fleet of air-to-air tankers that's unmatched by all the world's other nations combined. The US has space-based assets at its disposal that would allow it to constantly surveil the Arctic Ocean, especially the movements of surface vessels across the region, and it's got both the manpower and the ships at its disposal to establish quick-reaction forces, especially if America continues withdrawing its naval and other assets from Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

By positioning not just a few icebreakers but an entire fleet of them, the US could make itself the Arctic gold standard, always ready to escort a few tankers here or a few cargo ships there as the first sea lanes start to emerge. Or, there's Trump's new Golden Dome program to provide the US with integrated missile defense—for which Washington could easily station assets on Greenlandic bases under its control. Outside of military assets, the US could offer mineral-rights deals to Denmark or Greenland to facilitate American extraction of Greenland's natural resources, or the US could claim that it's a defense-industrial necessity and stretch existing international law over Greenland a bit to try and accommodate.

On paper, none of those actions would be likely to get push-back from Danish or Greenlandic authorities, and, more to the point, the US hasn't even bothered to find out. Sure, if they do get stonewalled at some stage, then perhaps there's a conversation to be had about whether it's worth sacrificing American priorities in the Arctic to maintain good relations with the Danes. But to annex an entire territory and destroy the NATO alliance on the presumption that America would get stonewalled is less a strategic failure than a basic interpersonal one.

The Likelihood of Military Action

At this moment, eventual US military action against Greenland seems more likely than not. Ultimately, we just don't know for sure what's driving America's decisions, but we do know that Washington is saying that this is ultimately a matter of national security. And if it's national security that Washington is worried about, then we have to be very clear: None of this needs to happen.

If those are America's motives, then America does not need to invade Greenland, it does not need to annex the territory either peacefully or militarily, and it does not need to sacrifice the NATO alliance itself to access the strategic value that Greenland offers. The United States already possesses the treaty rights, the legal framework, and the diplomatic relationships necessary to achieve every stated national security objective in Greenland without resorting to territorial acquisition or military force.

Hopefully, someone in the White House will be able to come to their senses and get this through to Trump before it's too late—but right now, that just doesn't seem likely. The escalation from rhetoric to tariffs to explicit refusals to rule out military force suggests a trajectory that may be difficult to reverse, regardless of the strategic logic arguing against such action.

Related Coverage

• The UAE is Destabilizing the Entire Middle East
• How the UAE's Regional Meddling Triggered a Historic Realignment Across the Middle East
• The UAE's Regional Ambitions Collapse as Middle East Powers Push Back

FAQ

What is the Greenland Defense Agreement?

The Greenland Defense Agreement is a pact signed in the 1950s between the United States, Denmark, and other founding NATO members. It allows the US to build, install, maintain, and operate as many military bases across Greenland as it wants, house unlimited personnel, and exert control over ship and aircraft movements in chosen areas. A 2004 amendment gave Greenlanders a say over operations impacting the local population, but this is practically a non-issue given Greenland's sparse population of only 57,000 people concentrated in twelve settlements.

Why is Greenland strategically important to the United States?

Greenland is strategically important for several reasons: it's positioned midway between Russia and the continental US above the Arctic Circle, making it ideal for positioning intelligence assets and nuclear-capable equipment like bombers and submarines; intercontinental ballistic missiles would overfly it during nuclear war; climate change is expected to open Arctic shipping lanes, benefiting countries with Arctic control; and melting ice is expected to expose immense natural resource deposits including oil, gas, and rare-earth elements fundamental for global supply chains.

How many US troops are currently deployed in Greenland?

The United States currently has only about 150 troops stationed at Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base) in Greenland. This is a dramatic reduction from Cold War levels when Thule Air Base hosted 6,000 troops in continuous rotation, with America's total presence across Greenland reaching 15,000 at its peak. The deployment has been downsizing since the 1990s, with Trump helping to shrink it to its current minimal state during his first term.

What actions has Trump taken regarding Greenland in recent days?

Over four days, Trump escalated his Greenland campaign through concrete actions: he levied a 10% tariff against NATO member states rallying around Denmark; sent an extraordinary message to Norway's Prime Minister questioning territorial ownership rights and declaring 'the World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland'; and outright refused to rule out taking Greenland by force. This followed more than a year of building his case for US control over the Danish territory.

How large is Greenland and what is its population?

Greenland spans a geographic area nearly four times larger than Texas, over double the size of Nigeria or Pakistan, and roughly as large as Mexico. Despite this enormous size, it has a population of only about 57,000 Greenlanders, most of whom are concentrated in just twelve settlements with populations greater than one thousand. This makes it a very sparsely settled territory.

What could the US do to increase its presence in Greenland without annexation?

The US could re-expand its deployment at Pituffik Space Base to thousands of troops instead of hundreds, transition it into a joint space-and-airbase, base naval assets including ballistic-missile submarines at the world's northernmost deep-water port, rebuild old base infrastructure and construct new bases, conduct air patrols using its unmatched fleet of aerial refueling tankers, deploy space-based surveillance assets, position fleets of icebreakers, station Golden Dome missile defense assets, and negotiate mineral-rights deals with Denmark or Greenland—all under existing treaty rights.

What are the alternative theories for why Trump wants Greenland?

Alternative theories include: challenging NATO to increase defense spending similar to his previous pressure campaigns; attempting to break the NATO alliance by creating an intra-alliance crisis; securing resource extraction rights that might be unavailable if Denmark retains sovereignty or Greenland becomes independent; pressure from American oligarchs with designs on Greenland; seeking an Alaska-style or Hawaii-style territorial acquisition for presidential legacy; or simply that Greenland looks large on maps and Trump believes bigger is better.

How has Denmark defended Greenland?

Denmark's defense of Greenland has been minimal. Before Trump escalated his rhetoric, Denmark deployed only 130-150 military and civilian personnel to its Joint Arctic Command overseeing both the Faroe Islands and Greenland. It assigned its 1st Squadron of the Royal Danish Navy—comprising only a small handful of poorly-armed frigates and cutters—to patrol duties. Even as tensions increased, Denmark only sent 200 additional troops, while NATO advance forces preparing for potential exercises number only in the low dozens.

Sources

• https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/greenland-national-defense-maps-6f53c339?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqcRojAw2AtclwKmwnhsVcM1FBOauPygue4nP1JhxnYFJ19oNgdWknbXj1st23o%3D&gaa_ts=696e9aaa&gaa_sig=nSUQ90VN4FAoXJEH5Hcq7HzPbJggtTHG3PK5i-dt5sG1-8-7X8ToVFPXEBet6ZcxgTydOJhrYZPKnOroOayATA%3D%3D
• https://www.cbsnews.com/news/greenland-maps-important-shipping-defense-arctic-warms/
• https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/greenland-is-europes-strategic-blind-spot-and-its-responsibility/
• https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/07/why-trump-wants-greenland-and-what-makes-it-so-important-for-security.html
• https://www.csis.org/analysis/greenland-rare-earths-and-arctic-security
• https://www.dw.com/en/5-graphics-that-show-greenlands-importance-to-trump/a-75547831
• https://www.cfr.org/articles/greenlands-independence-what-would-mean-us-interests
• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy7mev35x2lo
• https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/01/19/us/trump-news
• https://apnews.com/article/greenland-denmark-us-trump-starmer-9b01eb577363ee6e913722fe3d40d68e
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2026/jan/19/donald-trump-greenland-denmark-nobel-nato-europe-live-latest-news-updates
• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-greenland-use-of-force-nobel-norway-europe-tariffs-ukraine-rcna254786
• https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/trump-links-greenland-threats-to-missing-out-on-nobel-prize-3076eecc?gaa_at=eafs&gaa_n=AWEtsqex_Ymc-mL6a0EEFQFwi46O_yJ3zkjpqTa61hLxhjpakYAKGsWQEsb5DaVGy9U%3D&gaa_ts=696e91a4&gaa_sig=4-MfOxC8j0yyjwaYL_9suvpWwRW2N26-7kbzKAzyUE_TMB-R4VQZl2HfbUJNiqDN0JcrvrhB4BDKVVGGR-RLCw%3D%3D
• https://www.dw.com/en/greenland-updates-denmark-floats-nato-mission-on-island/live-75558976
• https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carney-greenland-soldiers-trump-tariff-nato-denmark-9.7050621
• https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/15/world/europe-troops-greenland-trump-nato-intl-hnk
• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd0ydjvxpejo’
• https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/15/us/politics/white-house-greenland-meeting.html
• https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/07/world/europe/trump-greenland-denmark-us-defense-pact.html
• https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/denmarks-greenland-dilemma-defending-territory-already-its-way-out-2026-01-10/
• https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/01/who-owns-greenland
• https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/19/world/europe/trump-greenland-europe-nato-alliance.html
• https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/dispatches/the-us-and-nato-can-avoid-catastrophe-over-greenland-and-emerge-stronger-heres-how/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/19/us/politics/trump-greenland-nato.html
• https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/breaking-trumps-argument-acquiring-greenland/story?id=129349786
• https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/19/politics/military-greenland-trump-denmark-nato
• https://www.bruegel.org/first-glance/greenland-not-marginal-us-takeover-threat-strategic-test-europe
• https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/16/europeans-befuddled-by-trumps-russian-rationale-for-greenland-00734955
• https://www.chathamhouse.org/2026/01/us-intentions-towards-greenland-threaten-natos-future-european-countries-are-not-helpless
• https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-greenland-norway-letter-standoff-nato-allies-nobel-peace-prize/
• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-19/why-does-trump-want-greenland-could-he-really-take-over-the-danish-territory
• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/buying-greenland-cost-much-700-billion-rcna253921