Throughout 2025, the Europeans had a single objective when dealing with the Trump Administration: ensure that the U.S. remained committed to European security, the situation in Ukraine, and NATO.
If the U.S. tries to annex Greenland, a semi – autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, that objective will become pointless in 2026. European leaders believe the White House is getting ready to do exactly that, as the White House says it is discussing a “range of options.”
For the Europeans, the U.S. is now a predatory regime. The Trump Administration has allied with far – right MAGA parties across the continent, which many European leaders believe pose an existential threat to their democracies. Washington continues to pressure Kyiv, even without clear U.S. security guarantees. Normalizing economic relations with Russia is on Trump’s team’s agenda. Yet, many European leaders refuse to accept this reality.
The reason? Europe is still highly dependent on the U.S. for its own security. The continent’s rearmament, a process that is underway, will take at least three to five years to be effective. Until then, Europe will rely heavily on equipment, intelligence, and other strategic support to keep Ukraine in the fight. And they will still be extremely dependent on the U.S., through NATO, to deter Russia.
The Trump Administration has noticed Europe’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities and is taking advantage of them. It did so last year, forcing the Europeans to accept restrictions on their exports to America to avoid angering Trump and speeding up a unilateral U.S. withdrawal from Ukraine and NATO.
The White House is using the same strategy again.
But the annexation of Greenland would destroy the illusion that America is still a friend.
President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, recently appointed special envoy to Greenland Jeff Landry, and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller have been discussing Greenland’s territory in recent days. Senior U.S. officials claim that the White House has legitimate security concerns in the Arctic region. These include countering threats; strengthening measures to limit China’s new capabilities; controlling access during wartime and expanding the U.S.’s naval presence. They don’t fully trust the Greenlanders or Danes to handle these matters on the U.S.’s behalf.
The seriousness of these American concerns is shown by the amount of activity taking place on Greenland across U.S. government agencies, involving work on economic incentives, diplomatic and legal agreements, and security arrangements.
It’s true that Denmark is a small country with relatively limited military capabilities, even though it spent a significant 3% of its GDP on defense in 2025 and is making efforts. But the island is also part of NATO’s territory, and senior European officials tell me that all of Trump’s security goals can be easily achieved. There is no opposition to more U.S. bases on the island; security and defense cooperation is also supported by U.S. – Danish bilateral agreements; and the U.S. has had substantial military access and base – operating authority on the island since 1951.
And if the U.S.’s interest in Greenland is mainly economic, the exploitation of the territory’s minerals and rare earths is already open to American investors.
This is why many European leaders fear they can do little to resolve this crisis, because a much cruder and more sinister goal is involved: territorial expansion and real estate. Trump seems to be driven by a desire to make America bigger on the map.
This would likely happen not through military occupation but through political and economic coercion to directly and politically influence the 57,000 Greenlanders, so that the U.S. can claim civilian as well as military sovereignty over the island.
The Europeans don’t have good solutions for what they would do if the U.S. tried to annex Greenland’s territory in this way. They could try to push forward with a “European NATO.” They could slow down their progress to seek an alliance with Beijing. But a more reasonable option would be to pressure Copenhagen to reach some kind of friendly agreement with the White House, as long as the U.S.’s aims can be moderated and made more rational.
Until now, the Danish government’s goal has been to keep Greenland out of the news; to wait patiently and stay calm. That strategy has now changed. Copenhagen is trying to increase the costs – for the U.S. to move forward with any plan and for the rest of Europe to stay neutral.
That’s why Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen clearly stated that, “if the U.S. chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War.”
A U.S. – imposed annexation of Greenland, even with a flood of dollars instead of missiles, would be one humiliation too many for the Europeans. Frederiksen is right: a U.S. land grab would mean the end of the Alliance and would cause irreparable damage to the E.U.
