Trump’s Insane Greenland Plot
The threat to take over an ally is a 19th-century solution to a 21st-century problem.
By Jeff Nesbit
Eighty-six percent of the American people oppose military action in Greenland, a new CBS News poll found. Multiple GOP senators have privately – and, in some cases, publicly – warned against using economic or military coercion against a NATO ally. Eight NATO countries issued an extraordinary, stern warning on Greenland Sunday.
None of it has worked. President Donald Trump had dropped unhinged statements throughout the weekend and threatened 10% tariffs against eight of America’s NATO allies until they pull back their rhetoric and support Trump’s bellicose efforts to seize Greenland by force if necessary.
Trump for months has insisted that the United States should control Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark, and has said that anything less than the Arctic island being in U.S. hands would be “unacceptable.”
His actions are now perilously close to destroying America’s longstanding relationship inside the NATO alliance, which will directly benefit Russia.
The eight NATO countries are not backing off. “We stand in full solidarity with the Kingdom of Denmark and the people of Greenland,’ the eight NATO nations said in their Sunday statement. “Tariff threats undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral.”
All of it raises the question: Why in the world is Trump so obsessed with Greenland, to the point that he seems hellbent on destroying the NATO alliance over it?
Trump has said repeatedly that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has chillingly declared that the U.S. military is “always an option.” His vice president and secretary of state have similarly reinforced Trump’s threats.
Perhaps Trump isn’t serious about taking Greenland by force. Perhaps it’s just a useful distraction from the ongoing Jeffrey Epstein files saga. Or maybe Trump is just bored.
Whatever the rationale is behind Trump’s fascination with acquiring Greenland, this isn’t a real estate whim; it’s a 19th-century land grab attempted in a 21st-century world.
As the Trump administration floats the idea of annexing the territory of a founding NATO ally, every one of America’s allies is desperately trying to get Trump’s attention with this question: Is the geopolitical holy grail Trump seeks worth the total destruction of the transatlantic alliance?
Because, if Trump is serious about Greenland as a geopolitical chess piece – or as a rare mineral reserve to be exploited – there are much, much better ways to go about it than threatening military force against a NATO ally.
Strategically, Greenland is the ultimate high ground. It anchors the GIUK Gap (Greenland, Iceland, and the United Kingdom), the maritime chokepoint through which the Russian Northern Fleet must pass to reach the Atlantic.
The United States already operates Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule) under a 1951 agreement. It’s our northern sentinel for missile defense and space surveillance.
Trump’s arguments – including that Denmark can’t hold the line against a “Polar Silk Road” paved by Russia and China -- ignore the facts.
Denmark has increased Arctic security spending by $13.7 billion in 2025. We already have the bases, the sensors, and the ally. Why burn the alliance to occupy a land where we already have the keys to the front door?
The second pillar of Trump’s obsession is what lies beneath the ice.
Greenland is home to an estimated 1.5 million metric tons of rare earth reserves, ranking eighth globally. These reserves are the oxygen of modern power, essential for everything from F-35 fighter jets (which require roughly 920 pounds of rare earth materials each) to the magnets in electric vehicle motors.
The urgency is driven by a stark reality: The United States is locked in a state of weaponized interdependence with Beijing.
As of early 2026, Beijing has tightened export licenses on critical elements like dysprosium and terbium, effectively putting a chokepoint on Western defense manufacturing. Though Trump is right to fear this monopoly, his solution is a fantasy.
Greenland’s minerals are an infrastructure nightmare; extraction of these minerals in the current Greenland climate will take a decade to realize. You don’t secure a supply chain by invading the supplier; you do it by building the refinery.
The cost of Trump’s obsession isn’t just financial; it’s the survival of the post-war order.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has been blunt: A U.S. move on Greenland would mean the end of NATO.
By threatening an ally with the same military force used in Venezuela, the Trump administration is signaling that no partner is safe if it possesses a resource we want. This “à la carte” security -- where we protect you only if you surrender your land -- is a gift to Russia and China.
It fractures the very coalition we need to deter Arctic aggression. Furthermore, Greenlanders, many native Inuit or Thule, overwhelmingly oppose annexation. A forced takeover would be a betrayal of the very principles of territorial integrity we claim to defend in Ukraine.
Meanwhile, there is a rational path forward that doesn’t involve seizing anything.
First, rather than a hostile takeover, the United States could lead an “Arctic Marshall Plan,” co-investing in Greenlandic mining and processing with Danish consent.
Second, there is the reported preference of some in the White House for a “Compact of Free Association,” which is at least grounded in law and acknowledges Greenland as a partner rather than a prize.
And third, you could just recognize and respect Greenland’s sovereignty. The 2009 Self-Government Act allows the United States to work with a pro-independence Greenland as a future ally, not a colonial subject.
Assuming that he’s not yammering about Greenland because he’s bored and that he genuinely wants a legacy-defining deal, there are better ways.
Denmark is an ally, and America’s friend. Seizing Greenland wouldn’t make America great; it would make America alone.
Jeff Nesbit was the public affairs chief for five Cabinet departments or agencies under four presidents.
We the public, and especially the media and our representatives in government, need to stop pretending that there's some kind of intelligible rationale for any of this. The fact of the matter is that our president is clearly insane (dementia, psychosis, solipsism, whatever), his cabinet is too invested in the grift (either financially or ideologically) to do anything other than keep propping him up so they can keep using his power, and the Republicans in congress who know better are too afraid to remove him because his cult members are making viable threats of violence against them and their families. We, as a country, need to face these realities if we are to find a way out of this mess that doesn't involve some version of WWIII. A bill to provide basic physical security to members of congress might actually be a good place to start.
"Why in the world is Trump so obsessed with Greenland, to the point that he seems hellbent on destroying the NATO alliance over it?"
Think about it. Who would be interested in destroying the NATO alliance? Who has, in fact, worked diligently to that end for years?
The answer to your question may be simpler than you think.