Greenland and the Grammar of Arctic Power

A bill has been tabled in the United States, proposed by Republican Congressman Randy Fine of Florida, granting legal authority to pursue the annexation of Greenland as the 51st state. Titled the Greenland Annexation and Statehood Act, the legislation reflects America’s expanding strategic gaze toward surrounding territories and fuels a contemporary saga, the race to determine who will ultimately be crowned the king of the ice. Donald Trump’s unequivocal stance on the issue has made his intentions toward Greenland abundantly clear.

This is not the first instance in which Greenland has been placed, metaphorically, on the market for American consideration. Similar attempts have surfaced in the past. In 1946, the United States offered Denmark 100 million dollars for the island. Denmark rejected the offer, consistent with its longstanding position on sovereignty. Today, with Trump’s second presidency, this dormant issue has resurfaced, once again dominating headlines. The timing of this renewed interest is itself significant and offers much for geopolitical analysts to examine.

Greenland stands as the largest island in the world and is home to thousands of people. It belongs to the Kingdom of Denmark, while maintaining its own government and national identity. Colonized by Denmark in 1721, Greenland was formally integrated into the Kingdom of Denmark in 1953. The Greenland Home Rule Act of 1979 later granted substantial autonomy in domestic affairs. This was followed by the Self Rule Act of 2009, which further expanded its powers of self governance and control over internal matters.

What elevates Greenland’s strategic importance is not merely its size but its location and what lies beneath its soil. Situated in the Arctic region, it bridges North America and Europe and straddles the crucial GIUK Gap, the Greenland Iceland United Kingdom naval chokepoint linking the Arctic to the Atlantic. This makes Greenland a potential strategic anchor for the United States. Its proximity to both continents enhances its military and logistical value for American planners. As climate change accelerates ice melt, tensions in the region rise. Newly accessible sea routes are emerging, with the potential to reshape future patterns of global trade and mobility.

Adding to this significance is Greenland’s abundance of rare earth minerals. Once ice retreat progresses further, these resources will become increasingly accessible. Greenland is estimated to possess approximately 1.5 million tons of rare earth mineral reserves, a volume that nearly rivals the current capacity of the United States. At a time when China has tightened its control over rare earth supply chains and leveraged this dominance for strategic advantage, American interest in Greenland becomes even more pronounced. If Washington’s ambitions materialize, the long term benefits for the United States would be substantial.

Rather than sidestepping the issue, Denmark chose direct diplomatic engagement. Greenland’s Foreign Minister Vivian Motzfeldt and Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen met with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President Vance at the White House. While the discussions offered dialogue, they failed to temper Trump’s determination to acquire Greenland in the name of national security.

Russia and China, America’s principal strategic competitors, also loom large in this theatre of Arctic rivalry. Trump consistently frames the region as essential to counterbalancing both powers. He has publicly stated that the United States needs Greenland for national security, linking it directly to missile defense initiatives such as the Golden Dome. He has argued that NATO should lead efforts to secure Greenland, warning that if the United States does not act, Russia or China will. In Trump’s narrative, NATO’s effectiveness and deterrence capability depend heavily on American power, which he claims to have strengthened during his first term and continues to elevate. According to him, NATO becomes significantly more formidable with Greenland under United States control, while any alternative is deemed unacceptable.

Modern warfare increasingly relies on early warning systems, surveillance, and advanced countermeasures. Russia controls nearly half of the Arctic coastline and has aggressively expanded its military footprint in the region. China, though geographically distant, has pursued an Arctic presence through economic investments, research initiatives, and strategic partnerships. The United States has maintained a foothold since the Second World War. The Pituffik Space Base, established in 1951, plays a critical role in missile early warning, space surveillance, and satellite tracking.

The most significant obstacle remains sovereignty, a constraint that historically has rarely deterred the United States when core interests are perceived to be at stake. There is ample historical precedent to support this observation. Should Trump move aggressively toward Greenland and challenge existing authority structures, it would not be without precedent. Recent events, including developments involving Venezuela, suggest that such maneuvers align with his broader worldview. Trump views it as his prerogative to position NATO as a vehicle for bringing Greenland under an American strategic umbrella. Denmark’s objections are therefore both predictable and justified, and Copenhagen has articulated its resistance firmly.

The Monroe Doctrine, articulated in the nineteenth century by James Monroe, was originally designed to counter European colonial interference in the Western Hemisphere. Over time, however, its interpretation has expanded, providing successive US administrations with ideological cover for interventionist and expansionist policies pursued in the name of national interest. What began as a defensive doctrine has gradually evolved into a justification for assertive and often unilateral action.

As the United States navigates the international system with an increasing reliance on coercion, democratic ideals and humanitarian principles appear increasingly elusive. International peace institutions struggle to fulfill their foundational mandate. Instruments such as the UN Charter, global treaties, and conventions often prove ineffective in practice. While their non binding nature contributes to this weakness, the deeper failure lies with the states that designed these mechanisms and subsequently disregard them. This gap between intent and implementation has rendered many international norms ambiguous and largely toothless.

America’s invocation of national security to justify a wide array of coercive actions reflects a growing level of hubris. Few rationalizations appear more hypocritical. Trump’s second term has thus far been markedly pugnacious, whether in trade policy, immigration enforcement, counter narcotics strategies, or territorial ambition. His commitment to the MAGA agenda manifests in a tightening grip across multiple domains. The cumulative effect of these actions has further unsettled an already fragile global order.

India, in this context, must proceed with caution. A volatile international environment increases the risk of miscalculation and unintended consequences. Diplomatic astuteness and pragmatic engagement will be essential to safeguard national interests amid mounting uncertainty. As Donald Trump approaches the completion of his first year in office, the Greenland episode offers an early glimpse of what the remaining three years may bring. It underscores a foreign policy pattern characterized by strategic assertiveness, territorial ambition, and an expansive interpretation of national security. Greenland is not an isolated provocation but rather a signal of a broader posture that is likely to intensify.

The Arctic’s transformation under climate change has converted ice into influence. Emerging trade routes, access to rare earth minerals, and military advantages have placed Greenland at the center of great power rivalry. By framing Russia and China as imminent threats, the United States legitimizes expansionist impulses while sidelining questions of sovereignty and self determination. In doing so, it revives logics that the post war international order was designed to restrain.

Denmark’s resistance and Greenland’s autonomous status expose the fragility of international norms when confronted with raw power. Legal frameworks and global institutions appear increasingly incapable of curbing such ambitions, revealing the widening gap between principle and practice in global politics. If Trump’s first year is any indication, the years ahead promise continued disruption of the international system. For middle powers like India, this demands strategic patience, diplomatic clarity, and careful calibration. The “plentiful fodder” Trump continues to generate is not merely rhetorical spectacle. It is a preview of a world in which power speaks louder than precedent, and where each controversy redefines the limits of what the international community is willing to tolerate.

References:

Fine, R. (2026, January 7). H.R. 7012: Greenland Annexation and Statehood Act (119th Congress, 2nd Session).  https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/7012/text

Fine, R. (2026, January 12). Congressman Fine introduces Greenland Annexation and Statehood Act to strengthen U.S. national security [Press release]. U.S. House of Representatives. https://fine.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=118

​Government of Greenland. (2009). Greenland Self-Government Act (Act No. 473 of 12 June 2009). Naalakkersuisut. https://naalakkersuisut.gl/en/naalakkersuisut/self-rule

​Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2019). Special report on the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate: Chapter 3: Sea level rise and implications for low-lying islands, coasts and communities. https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/chapter-3/

LaFeber, W. (1963). The new empire: An interpretation of American expansion, 1860-1898. Cornell University Press.

Monroe, J. (1823, December 2). Seventh annual message to Congress (Monroe Doctrine). Avalon Project, Yale Law School. https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/monroe.asp

Reuters. (2026, January 15). Denmark rejects U.S. overtures in Greenland talks amid Trump push. https://www.reuters.com/world/denmark-rejects-us-greenland-talks-2026-01-15/

​Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). (2025). Arctic military capabilities and security trends. https://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2025/03

U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. (2025). Annual report to Congress.  https://www.uscc.gov/annual-reports/annual-report-2025

​U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. (n.d.). 1946 U.S. offer to purchase Greenland from Denmark. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1946v01/d143

​U.S. Geological Survey. (2025). Mineral commodity summaries 2025: Rare earths (USGS Number 14691). https://pubs.usgs.gov/publication/mcs2025