Greenland and the White House: A Contradiction in American Diplomacy
By. Brodie Gardner
DOI. 10.57912/33936712
“Foreign military intervention” is the term defining the second Trump administration. It has issued threats of invasion against Canada, Panama, and Cuba. It has bombed the Houthis in Yemen and later Iran to dismantle their nuclear program, while also maintaining military support for Israel in the Middle East despite public anger over Israel's military decisions. The recent ouster of Nicholas Maduro from power, despite leaving his regime in place, has also left many confused as to what comes next in Latin America. None is more concerning than Trump’s desire to obtain Greenland from Denmark to strengthen U.S. security, regardless of how it violates the sovereignty of allied Denmark. Trump’s desire to usurp control of the territory of Greenland from Denmark is part of a dangerous trend by the current administration to bypass international organizations in favor of doing what is perceived to be in the best interest of American national security. The Trump Administration should instead lobby NATO member nations to increase their spending while better coordinating with key regional allies to thwart future Russian aggression.
Why invade a country like Denmark, a historic American ally? Indeed, Denmark and America have had longstanding ties going back to the 18th century, when both nations first established commercial relations. Centuries of amicable cooperation, including recent collaboration through NATO enlargement and stabilization efforts in Afghanistan, have sustained a close relationship between the two in terms of foreign affairs. The United States is also Denmark’s largest non-European Union trading partner, and Denmark has become the center for the American government’s public and private sector dealings with the Nordic and Baltic regions. The past ten years have eroded this relationship. President Trump, in both of his terms, has floated the idea of buying Greenland. He first proposed buying Greenland in 2019, even calling off a proposed summit with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen because she was not open to selling Greenland. 2025 then saw renewed efforts to claim the territory, with President Trump refusing to rule out the possibility of an annexation of the country. He has since claimed that, due to Greenland’s vast natural resources and strategic importance, taking the country would be vital to American security and prosperity, and to Denmark’s interests resisting Russia and China.
Examining the history of American foreign policy reveals that Trump’s desire to authorize military operations against foreign countries for strategic and economic gain is nothing new; however, it does represent a new problem for the Trump administration as it openly threatens its allies in order to achieve disorganized policy goals that primarily benefit itself. With Secretary Pete Hegseth having acknowledged plans to take over Greenland by force despite any evidence of a threat to the United States, there is serious concern about what a potential invasion would result in if President Trump decides to take steps against an ally using pure force for a territory that Danish citizens would certainly fight valiantly for.
The Trump administration’s actions on foreign policy have been unpredictable, much to the chagrin of the global community, yet specifically by design of his second cabinet. On foreign policy, Trump follows a strategy rooted in his portrayal as an unpredictable and unstable leader, known as the “Madman Theory.” President Nixon coined this strategy during the Vietnam War, threatening to nuke North Vietnam as one of his points of leverage against the communist forces in that country. This was a means of frightening communist adversaries with threats of irrational nuclear military strikes if the U.S. did not have its demands for an end to the Vietnam War met.
President Trump has used the Madman Theory to propel his foreign trade agenda, doing so as early as his first term against South Korea when he tried to compel them to agree to his administration’s concessions.
President Trump’s efforts to obtain concessions or encourage deterrence based on his Greenland threats have not worked. One example of this is the oil firm known as “Greenland Energy”, which announced plans to drill into the Jameson Land region of Greenland with the backing of the White House inner circle. Greenland Energy has since been forced to put its extraction claims on hold because the company in question lacked “the necessary approvals.” This has put a halt on plans of extracting oil in Greenland that Trump officials like US Greenland Envoy Jeff Landry insist could provide the United States with oil ready “...within ten months or so.”
President Vladimir Putin of Russia, meanwhile, has continuously refused to back down from his own plans for Arctic expansion, even suggesting that the US wants a “staging area” for future conflicts in Europe, using countries like Greenland to do so. Russia has continuously pursued Arctic expansion of shipping routes, going as far as to establish a “maritime collegium” to better protect its economic interests, such as shipping lanes.
There is an obvious but necessary question: what can Trump do to salvage the United States' relationship with Greenland and Denmark? The dilemma is cultivating a long-term strategy that the Trump administration can work on that can truly benefit American foreign policy without abandoning avenues involving international cooperation. However, there is still time for the White House to change course through a revised commitment to respectful military strength.
The current climate of American military intervention has made the threat of invading Greenland especially desperate for President Trump, who needs to readjust his priorities towards ending a global energy crisis while mending fences with a historic European ally. Creating a plan that appeals to the Trump administration relies on sending a message to Russia and our other global adversaries. Denmark has previously committed to spending 5.4% of its budget on NATO defense, up from 2.4%. Negotiating for benefits on tariff rates set by President Trump in exchange for paying 6.5% towards NATO defense could make up a future trade deal between Denmark and the United States. Reassessing joint training exercises with a key European ally, England, could also send an antagonistic Russia a message in the wake of a July “live-fire exercise” 40 miles off the coast of Plymouth. An increase in air and naval training operations would be crucial in improving interoperability as the United Kingdom’s shipments of drones for the Ukrainian war effort has made Western Europe all the more vulnerable to continuous Russian aggression. Reshifting defense strategy with our key European allies, especially the United Kingdom, should be the primary focus of reorganizing our Arctic defense strategy.
Showing strength is currently prioritized, above all else, as opposed to demonstrating respect through firm diplomacy, which could serve American interests that are far more beneficial in Europe against adversaries like Russia. Brute force has failed in giving the United States a strategic advantage that strong-willed diplomacy and a commitment to democratic norms could have given the country despite fluctuating international politics.
Comments