Paris and Berlin have quietly moved to the center of an escalating geopolitical drama in the Arctic, coordinating a European response to what the Trump administration has framed as a “national security priority”: the acquisition of Greenland from the Kingdom of Denmark. What began as provocative rhetoric from Washington has, in the aftermath of recent American military action in Venezuela, taken on a far more serious tone, forcing Europe to confront questions of sovereignty, alliance solidarity, and the future of the Arctic order.
The renewed urgency around Greenland follows the White House’s bold decision to overthrow Nicolás Maduro’s socialist regime in Venezuela, which U.S. officials described as a modern assertion of the Monroe Doctrine. That doctrine, dating back to the nineteenth century, holds that the Western Hemisphere lies within America’s sphere of influence and that Washington may intervene to deter foreign encroachment. While Greenland is geographically part of North America and therefore in the Western Hemisphere, it remains a self-governing territory of Denmark, a NATO ally and European partner.
This contradiction has reignited long-simmering tensions. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt made clear this week that the administration is prepared to escalate. “President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the United States,” she said, adding that “utilising the U.S. military is always an option at the commander in chief’s disposal”. For many European capitals, this was not bluster but a signal that the debate has moved from the realm of hypothetical diplomacy into something much more concrete.
France and Germany reacted swiftly. French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot announced that Paris would work closely with Berlin and Warsaw to craft a unified European response, insisting that “we want to take action, but we want to do so together with our European partners”. A German government source confirmed that Berlin is “closely working together with other European countries and Denmark on the next steps regarding Greenland”. The aim is not only to defend Danish sovereignty but also to protect what European leaders see as the integrity of the post-war international system.
Greenland’s political status makes the situation especially complex. Although it is not part of the European Union and withdrew from the European Community in 1985, it remains an Overseas Country and Territory associated with the bloc through Denmark. The island enjoys extensive autonomy under the Self-Government Act of 2009 and has the legal right to hold a referendum on independence at any time, subject to final approval by the Danish parliament. That provision, intended to empower Greenlanders, now represents a potential pressure point for Washington.
Top Trump administration figures have tried to soften the perception that military force is imminent. Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller has downplayed the likelihood of an actual invasion, and according to reporting in the Wall Street Journal, Secretary of State Marco Rubio told lawmakers behind closed doors that the public saber-rattling was designed to bring Denmark to the negotiating table rather than to prepare for war. Copenhagen and Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, are now seeking a direct meeting with Rubio to clarify the White House’s intentions.
Still, the political damage may already be done. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that any use of American military power against Greenland would “spell the end of NATO”. Her remark was not idle hyperbole. While Denmark’s defense spending is modest compared to that of the United States – which spends more than the rest of NATO combined – the alliance is built on the assumption that its members do not threaten one another’s territorial integrity. A forced acquisition of Greenland would shake that foundation to its core.
The American interest in Greenland is hardly new. In the 1860s, Secretary of State William H. Seward, fresh from negotiating the purchase of Alaska, floated the idea of annexing Greenland and even Iceland. Similar efforts followed World War II, when Washington briefly explored buying the island from Denmark. None succeeded. If the Trump administration were to succeed now, it would mark the largest territorial expansion of the United States in history, eclipsing even the Louisiana Purchase of 1803.
Rather than outright annexation, alternative frameworks have been discussed, most notably a Compact of Free Association (COFA) similar to those Washington maintains with the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau. Under such arrangements, countries remain sovereign but grant the United States extensive military access and strategic rights in exchange for economic aid, free trade, and the ability of their citizens to live and work in America without visas. For Greenland, this would almost certainly require a referendum on independence from Denmark, giving Washington a potential pathway to reshape the island’s future without a formal purchase.
This is precisely what worries European leaders. An unnamed EU diplomat told POLITICO that Washington may seek to use prospective security guarantees for Ukraine after any peace settlement with Russia as leverage, pressing European allies to moderate their opposition to American control of Greenland. In other words, the fate of the Arctic island could become entangled with the broader architecture of European security.
From Washington’s perspective, the stakes are immense. The Arctic is rapidly becoming a central arena of great-power competition, as melting ice opens new shipping routes and access to vast mineral deposits. Greenland is believed to hold significant reserves of rare-earth elements – materials critical to advanced technologies and currently dominated by China. U.S. officials fear that an independent Greenland could drift into Beijing’s orbit or, in a darker scenario, become a foothold for Russian influence in the High North.
To make any American proposal more palatable to Greenlanders, some former officials have floated financial sweeteners. Alexander Gray, a former deputy assistant to the president and chief of staff at the National Security Council, has suggested creating a sovereign wealth fund modeled on Alaska’s Permanent Fund, which distributes dividends to residents from oil revenues. Such a scheme could give Greenlanders a direct financial stake in any resource extraction undertaken by American firms.
Yet no amount of economic incentive can easily overcome the political reality facing Europe. For France and Germany, the Greenland question is about more than one remote island. It is a test of whether Europe can act collectively to defend the principles of sovereignty and partnership that underpin its relationship with the United States. If Washington can pressure a small ally into surrendering territory, what does that mean for the credibility of European security guarantees elsewhere?
As European diplomats shuttle between capitals, one thing is clear: Greenland has become a litmus test for the future of the transatlantic alliance. Whether through negotiation, referendum, or confrontation, the outcome will reverberate far beyond the icy shores of the Arctic, shaping the balance of power between the United States and its closest allies for decades to come.
Comments