The Need for Greenland

“There is no scenario, in my view, in which the United States would violate Danish sovereignty. That does not exist.”
Thus spoke President Emmanuel Macron on Tuesday, January 6, following the Paris summit of the “coalition of the willing.” Elated at having secured from the United States—represented in Paris by the Wittkoff-Kushner duo—a promise to “monitor” a potential future ceasefire line in Ukraine, Macron acted as if the Greenland issue simply did not exist. Indeed, how could one count on the Americans as indispensable allies in Ukraine, while at the same time imagining confronting or even opposing them if, by misfortune, the United States were to invade Greenland—that is, Denmark, a NATO member state? Clearly, neither Macron nor the other European leaders wished to face this reality.

And yet, the possibility is very real—indeed, a certainty, if one is to believe the American president. Just hours after celebrating the dramatic abduction of dictator Maduro in Caracas, Trump did not hesitate to state that the United States “absolutely needs Greenland” and that the matter would be revisited “in 20 days.”

This “need” for Greenland is, in fact, a long-standing issue at the Pentagon. No fewer than twelve American bases were established there during World War II, and the same number during the Cold War. The United States also has a defense agreement with the Kingdom of Denmark, signed in 1951, granting them complete freedom to build whatever they wish on the island. Currently, the only major installation is the Thule (Pituffik) air and space base. Over the decades, Washington has repeatedly attempted to purchase Greenland—Truman even offered $100 million in gold in 1946 for this strategic Arctic location. Forgotten by many, on January 28, 1968—almost to the day 58 years ago—a B-52 bomber carrying four thermonuclear bombs crashed while landing in Thule. Fortunately, the bombs did not detonate, but only three of the four were recovered. The fourth remains buried in the ice, despite a four-month search campaign named “Crested Ice.” At the small museum on base, I saw the bomber’s door still on display. To this day, any possible radioactive leaks remain a closely guarded state secret between the Americans and the Danes.

With Trump, however, the situation takes on a whole new dimension—for at least four reasons.

The first is that seizing Greenland would be militarily effortless—a matter of one or two hours. Trump even publicly mocked the Danish military reinforcements sent to the island: “You know what the Danes recently did to improve Greenland’s security? They added a sled dog.”

The second reason is financial. Greenland fuels the fantasies of mining companies due to its rare earth elements, but also those of California’s libertarian high-tech community, which seeks to establish crypto-states on underdeveloped territories. Silicon Valley titan Peter Thiel has invested in a startup called Praxis, which has already dispatched experts to assess the island. Not coincidentally, Trump’s new ambassador to Denmark, Ken Howery, is a close associate of Thiel and Elon Musk, with whom he co-founded PayPal. In short, taking Greenland would be faster than reaching Mars.

The third reason is that no one would intervene to stop it—certainly not NATO members, who would likely deem it a strictly Danish affair. It is hard to imagine France, for example, invoking NATO’s Article 5 to resist an American invasion. In such a case, it would become clear that NATO no longer functions. As the Danish Prime Minister has stated, “If the United States were to attack another NATO member, it would be the end—of NATO and the security it has provided since World War II.” A statement perhaps exaggerated, considering NATO did nothing to prevent Turkey from militarily occupying half of Cyprus in 1974—a situation that continues to this day.

The fourth and final reason: Greenland is good for morale, especially when polls begin to look worrisome for Trump in this midterm election year; when court rulings threaten his tariffs and force him to withdraw the National Guard from key cities where he aimed to curb immigration; and with the Epstein scandal still casting a shadow over Washington’s political scene.

So yes—whether through purchase or force—Trump genuinely “needs Greenland.”
A word to the wise, on this side of the Atlantic...

Pierre Lellouche
January 7, 2026