What lies behind Trump’s Greenland moves? | Explained Today World News

The story so far:U.S. President Donald Trump originally mooted the idea of the U.S. taking over the Arctic territory of Greenland during his first term in office. He later cancelled a visit to Denmark after its Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, said Greenland was “not for sale”. Early in his second term, in January 2025, Mr. Trump re-upped his demand for Greenland, vowing that Washington “would tariff Denmark at a very high level” if it played spoiler, adding that he would not rule out the use of military force to push the deal through.

Also Read: Welcome deescalation | On Donald Trump, Greenland and Europe

What happened next?

In mid-January 2026, the White House proposed a plan to slap eight European countries with a 10% tariff on “any and all goods” beginning on February 1, which was then set to increase to 25% on June 1, until an agreement was reached on Greenland. However, speaking in recent days at the World Economic Forum at Davos, Mr. Trump backed down from this strident rhetoric, announcing “the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic region.” At that forum, Mr. Trump suggested that the time frame of such a deal would be “infinite”. He said additional discussions on Greenland were ongoing, including the Golden Dome missile defence plan, a $175 billion system which aims to position U.S. weapons in space.

Why does Greenland matter to the U.S.?

Greenland is primarily coveted by the Trump administration for two broad reasons: its rich natural resources base and strategic location. The strategic location aspect is one that is claimed by the Trump administration, the access to resources less so. At Davos, Mr. Trump said that it is rightful for the U.S. to “have” Greenland “for security [and not] anything else.” Commenting on the complexities of Arctic exploration, he noted, “You have to go 25ft down through ice to get it. It’s not something that a lot of people are going to do or want to do.” This argument is premised on the Trump White House’s claim that Russian and Chinese influence in the region is expanding, one that is not substantiated by intelligence reports — especially given that Greenland is also protected by the security umbrella of NATO.

Similarly, there is regional reassurance for the U.S. and its allies in the fact that under the U.S.-Denmark pact of 1951, security threats to the Arctic territory could legally trigger the U.S.’s option to broaden its military presence in Greenland. Reports have noted that Washington had stationed close to 10,000 troops on the island in the Cold War period, compared to only 200 or so U.S. troops there currently.

However, there is little doubt that Greenland is home to considerable and possibly vast reserves of oil and natural gas, as well as certain raw materials vital for the military technologies sector, electronics industry, and clean energy outputs. Reports suggest that 25 of 34 minerals considered to be “critical raw materials” by the European Commission are present in Greenland, including graphite and titanium.

Thus, while some U.S. lawmakers have said that the Trump administration’s apparent adventurism in forcing Denmark’s hand on surrendering Greenland to Washington is based on protecting U.S. national security interests in areas such as shipping lanes, energy and fisheries, the true motivation for this quest likely has far more to do with striking bargains for the extraction of natural resources than what public proclamations suggest.

What about the latest agreement?

The so-called “framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland” that Mr. Trump mentioned at Davos has been long on rhetoric and short on details. The only fact known is the meeting that Mr. Trump had with NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, and the latter’s clear statement that the discussion had not touched upon the question of Danish sovereignty over Greenland. Yet it is hard to conceive of the terms of an agreement that would be acceptable to Mr. Trump that did not at least cede partial control of certain territories within Greenland to Washington. Anonymous U.S. officials have been quoted in certain reports suggesting exactly this — that any viable agreement would likely mirror the concept of the U.K.’s military establishments in Cyprus, considered to be part of British territory.

What are the broader ramifications?

The Trump climbdown from an aggressive posture on U.S. control of Greenland was quite likely precipitated by the prospect of a potential judicial ruling against the White House’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to slap allies and partner nations with broad-based tariffs. Importantly, European nations had also signalled that in the event of such aggression, they would seriously consider bringing into force a hard-hitting counter-tariff mechanism that would negatively impact the trade in goods and services of large U.S. tech firms conducting business in the EU. Yet, the deeper concern for other countries is the fact that there is a lingering possibility of a territory-hungry Washington interfering in the politics of not only Denmark and Venezuela, but other countries as well.

What role should other nations play?

The rules based international order may not be what it was at the end of the first decade of the 21st century. However, it must be true that countries such as India, China, and others, still subscribe to certain basic principles of that order. These nations now need to find ways to push back on the neo-imperialist depredations of Washington, Moscow, and Tel Aviv, in terms of their brazen disregard of territorial sovereignty and human rights in the pursuit of commercial and strategic interests.