This announcement marks a substantial expansion of the US strategic role in the Arctic, particularly amid growing geopolitical competition in the region, including the expanding strategic interests of Russia and China. In his address to the UN, President Trump said the US would immediately begin developing a large military presence at appropriate locations, including building two major military bases.[2]

President Trump had expressed interest in Greenland since his first term in office. However, during his ongoing second term, he became much more assertive. He suggested that the US could use military force to take control of Greenland or pay Denmark to transfer the territory to the US. It was an exercise in coercive diplomacy, and the message was clearly not restricted to Denmark alone, but also to the wider NATO alliance. The US already had extensive military access to Greenland under a foundational 1951 bilateral defence treaty. Eventually, intense diplomatic pressure from the US secured enhanced base rights and blocked foreign adversaries.[3]

During Trump 2.0, serious efforts could have begun in late March 2025, when US Vice President JD Vance visited Greenland, accompanied by the US National Security Adviser and Energy Secretary. This visit could be perceived as a pressure tactic by Trump to advance his agenda of purchasing the autonomous Danish territory or compelling it to merge with the US.  This latest agreement could be interpreted as a compromise against Trump’s earlier maximalist position of military takeover; however, in all probability, that was a deliberately adopted negotiating strategy. He knew that any attempt to acquire Greenland, particularly by force, would be difficult to justify, especially given Greenland/Denmark’s association with NATO. By adopting a highly assertive and coercive diplomatic posture, Trump may have secured American strategic objectives.

For several decades, Arctic geopolitics was largely discussed in terms of environmental governance, climate change, indigenous rights, commercial shipping routes, and the development of natural resources. The Arctic Council’s establishment in 1996 institutionalised this approach.[4]  For all these years, security considerations have also shaped Arctic geopolitics, though with less focus. Nuclear deterrence and strategic access to the region have always been important, particularly for Russia and the US.

It now appears........

© IDSA