On Wednesday, Jan. 21, President Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that he had formed a “framework of a deal” with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) regarding Greenland. NATO is a political and military alliance with 32 member countries, including the United States.
NATO spokesperson Allison Hart said in a statement that “discussions among NATO allies on the framework the president referenced will focus on ensuring Arctic security through the collective efforts of allies.”
The topic of acquiring Greenland was first raised by Trump in 2019 when he told reporters from NPR and other outlets the idea was “not No. 1 on the burner.” The topic resurfaced in December 2024 when Trump wrote that “the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity” in a Truth Social post announcing his decision to appoint PayPal co-founder Ken Howery as U.S. Ambassador to Denmark.
In a January 2025 post about Donald Trump Jr.’s trip to Greenland, Trump said that “Greenland is an incredible place, and the people will benefit tremendously if, and when, it becomes part of our Nation.” Trump added that he wouldn’t rule out military or economic coercion against Greenland.
Trump’s remarks about the purchase or annexation of Greenland escalated in December 2025 when he continued to cite threats posed by both Russia and China as his motivation. According to the New York Times, Trump’s discussion with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte included a plan to cede sovereignty of small areas of Greenland’s land to the United States for the purpose of building military bases.
According to CBS News, Trump said on Jan. 4 that “We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it.”
According to Carleton professor of political science Greg Marfleet, Trump’s motivation for the acquisition of Greenland may stem from the increasing importance of the Arctic in the world order.
“The Russians are making a bigger play for territory in that space. And China is making a play, in some ways, to be engaged in the conversation about what happens in the future in the Arctic,” Marfleet said. He believes, however, that the U.S. can be a player in the Arctic through NATO without the acquisition of Greenland.
Besides security, there are other possible motivations behind Trump’s move to acquire Greenland.
“I see it as another step and a big global power shift,” said Lane Frazee-Johnson ’29.
Trump’s plan for Greenland fits into the wider shift in foreign strategy outlined in the Trump administration’s new National Security Strategy document, which references a desire for a “[h]emisphere whose governments cooperate with us.” According to Marfleet, the document showcases an “argument for great power spheres of influence,” of which Greenland would be a part.
Trump’s actions have caused a rift within NATO, disrupting an alliance that has dominated the world stage since its founding after World War II. This rift is evidenced in a joint statement from seven European leaders that says: “It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.”
Tensions came to a head at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, Switzerland, from Jan. 19 to Jan. 23, where Trump gave a speech denying any plans to use military force to capture Greenland but maintaining the possibility of somehow purchasing the country.
“I think other countries could put more pressure on the U.S. … the countries were only concerned about the economic situation,” said political science major Amelia Hildebrandt ’27.
The focus of most world leaders were on the potential tariffs Trump had proposed putting on European countries who resisted his plan for Greenland.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney placed Trump’s plan within a broader global context during his speech at the meeting in Davos, saying, “It seems that every day we’re reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry, that the rules based order is fading, that the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must.”