US Intensions towards Greenland – Can NATO Survive?

US intentions toward Greenland in early 2026 revolve around a renewed push by President Trump to acquire or exert control over the island, which has triggered a major crisis in transatlantic relations and cast serious doubt on the future of NATO.

US motives

The Trump administration’s interest in Greenland is driven by a mix of strategic, economic, and ideological motives:

• Strategic control of the Arctic: The US sees Greenland as key to dominating the Arctic, especially for missile warning, space surveillance, and intercept capabilities. The existing Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule) already gives the US a major military foothold, but the Trump administration wants “complete and total control” to counter Russian and Chinese influence in the far north.
• Access to minerals and resources: Greenland holds vast untapped mineral wealth (rare earths, uranium, nickel, etc.), which the administration views as vital for US economic and technological dominance. US administration has argued that American companies must have privileged access to these resources, which they believe is only possible through direct control.
• “Monroe Doctrine” mindset: The policy is framed as an updated version of the Monroe Doctrine, asserting that the US must dominate its immediate region (North and Central America, the Caribbean, and now Greenland). This implies that sovereignty of smaller states can be overridden if the US deems it a national security imperative.

Strategic Objectives: The US remains focused on two primary goals:

• The “Golden Dome”: Integrating Greenland into a proposed US-led global missile defense system.
• Resource Security: Securing rights to Greenland’s vast deposits of critical minerals and rare-earth elements to reduce reliance on China.
• Strategic Deterrence: Countering Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic, which the US argues Denmark cannot adequately manage alone.

Trump has openly stated that, for the sake of “national and world security,” the US must acquire Greenland, even if that means choosing between seizing it or preserving NATO.

Threats and coercive tactics

Instead of quiet diplomacy, the US has used increasingly aggressive tactics:

• Military threats: White House officials, including Stephen Miller, have explicitly said that the US has the right to take Greenland by force. Trump has ordered military planners to prepare invasion options and has refused to rule out military action, writing that he would take Greenland “the hard way” if Denmark refuses to sell.
• Economic coercion: Trump has threatened to impose escalating tariffs (up to 25%) on Denmark and several NATO allies (Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, UK, etc.) until they support his effort to take Greenland.
• Political interference: The US has sent unofficial “envoys” and influencers to Greenland to promote separatism and undermine Danish sovereignty, which Denmark has condemned as a hybrid threat and banned in its security legislation.

Impact on NATO: “The end of NATO”

The United States’ actions have created a direct crisis within NATO, raising the question: can NATO survive if one ally threatens to attack another?

• Denmark’s position: Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has stated clearly that an attack on Greenland would be an attack on NATO itself, which would trigger a collective response under Article 5. She has warned that such a move would end NATO and that the US cannot “blackmail” its allies.
• European/NATO response: In response, Denmark and eight NATO allies (including France, Germany, UK, Norway, Sweden, and others) have deployed military reinforcements to Greenland under “Operation Arctic Endurance,” including elite Arctic warfare units. Germany has proposed a permanent NATO “Arctic Sentry” mission, similar to Baltic Sentry, to solidify allied presence.
• NATO as a potential casualty: EU defence commissioner Andrius Kubilius and other European leaders stress that if the US invades Greenland, it would be the end of NATO, since a treaty ally attacking another would destroy the alliance’s credibility. Many analysts agree that such a breach would shatter the transatlantic security framework built since 1945.
• NATO’s dilemma: Internally, NATO is trying to avoid a direct clash. Trump claims to have reached a “framework” for a future Greenland deal with NATO chief Mark Rutte, but the details remain vague and suspect. For many European allies, the real concern is not just over Greenland, but whether NATO can function when its most powerful member openly threatens to violate its own founding principles.

Greenland’s and the world’s reaction

• Greenland and Denmark: Both governments have issued joint statements that Greenland is “not for sale” and that the island’s future lies with its own people, not as a US possession. Greenlandic leaders have emphasized that they choose to remain with the Kingdom of Denmark, not under US rule, and they welcome NATO protection from US pressure.
• Domestic opposition in the US: A large majority of Americans (73% in a YouGov poll) oppose a military invasion of Greenland, and bipartisan groups in Congress have introduced bills to block any military action against a NATO ally and to protect NATO unity.
• International condemnation: The EU, Canada, and other partners have stood firmly behind Denmark, with the EU warning of a full trade war and possible use of its “anti‑coercion instrument” against the US. Russia and China have welcomed the US’s self‑inflicted divisions, seeing it as proof that NATO is weakening.

In short, the US’s current intentions toward Greenland are fundamentally about asserting dominance in the Arctic, but doing so in a way that gravely undermines NATO’s credibility and raises serious questions about whether the alliance can survive such intra‑alliance aggression.