How to lose Western Allies in the Arctic 101

Vice President JD Vence visits Pituffik Space Base in Greenland, in March, 2025, to discuss ongoing missions. Trump considers Greenland crucial for US national security, highlighting that the Pituffik Space Base maintains a US military presence there. Photo: U.S. Space Force

The title might come off as radical, yet the Arctic’s evolving strategic landscape could prove genuinely disruptive for transatlantic solidarity. After a well-established regional order based on the Arctic Council, Arctic cooperation suffered after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, when the Arctic Council was suspended and later excluded Russia from its activities.

Now, the recent statements of Donald Trump regarding the acquisition of Greenland might damage the transatlantic relations even further and lose credibility when it comes to Arctic cooperation.

Trump’s Administration Agenda for Greenland

Trump’s Administration argues that acquiring Greenland is necessary to ensure US security and prevent Chinese and Russian influence in the region.

The US has a military presence in Greenland at Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), but Trump does not specify how the island’s military presence could be improved to further protect the US from Russian and Chinese interests.

The Trump Administration also argues that the acquisition of Greenland is related to the abundance of mineral and energy resources. It is a fact that global warming is strongly affecting that region of the globe, but exploring mineral and energy resources in the high north is still expensive due to extreme temperatures, sea ice and icebergs, permafrost, and sea spray icing, lack of infrastructure, and remoteness.

In a commentary, Andreas Østhagen discusses that the US interest in Greenland goes beyond the security policy, resources, and maritime routes. He suggests that the reason for the Greenland push revolves around America First foreign policy: a policy that projects an image of a strong leader and that European countries should be firmly managed.

Equally, the idea that China is expanding its influence in Greenland doesn’t reflect the current reality. The Greenland Inuit Ataqatigiit government (IA), elected in 2021, was looking to diversify away from Chinese investments, prioritizing the European Union and the US. For example, the former government proceeded with the revocation of mining licenses from Chinese companies. The newly elected government in 2025 considers that there is opportunity for the US and EU to counter Chinese influence in the region. Nonetheless, the business and mineral resources minister Naaja Nathanielsen advises that the continuous hesitation from western governments might push Greenland to further deepen ties with China to secure investments. The former IA government was also strongly concerned with the environmental impact of resource mining. The government banned uranium mining and stalled or suspended other projects. The new government’s actions are yet to be seen, but they oppose the uranium ban and advocate for controlled resources mining.

Trump’s claim that the acquisition of Greenland is important to counter Chinese influence is inaccurate, given that he stated that the current government was already working on it. Trump is signaling that Greenland’s government lacks the capacity to manage the island independently, whereas the US should instead use the opportunity to strengthen transatlantic ties and Arctic cooperation. Denmark and Greenland remain receptive to expanding the relationship with the US, but, at the same time, they highlighted that the island is not for sale.

The United States’ Long Tradition of Acquiring Greenland

The US acquisition of Greenland is not a new idea. This is the fifth attempt. Back in 1867, the then US Secretary of State William Seward proposed the purchase of Greenland, along with Iceland, after the purchase of Alaska from Russia during the negotiations with Denmark to acquire St. Thomas and St. John (now US Virgin Islands, which were only purchased in 1917). Seward was an expansionist and believed that the acquisition of northern islands would favor the acquisition of Canada. The second discussion of acquiring Greenland was proposed by the then US ambassador Maurice Egans in 1910 during the rising tensions between Russia, Japan, and China, and US and German interests in the Pacific. The ambassador proposed an island swap between the US and Denmark. The US would exchange the Dutch Antilles and the Mindanao (Philippine Island) for Greenland. The third attempt was made in 1946 when the then US Secretary of State James Byrnes presented an offer of $100 million worth of gold bars in exchange for Greenland due to security and defense concerns. However, Denmark refused the offer and the US ended up with two air bases on the island (Thule Air Base and Bluie West One). The fourth attempt was made by Donald Trump in 2019 with the same reasons as the fifth attempt, which was quickly rejected by the Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen.

The idea of acquiring Greenland by the US is not new. Purchasing and selling land between nations might have been a common practice in the 20th and 19th centuries, but in the 21st century is widely regarded as incompatible with modern principles of international law, territorial integrity, and sovereignty as established in the post-World War II.

Danger of Symbolic Politics

Regardless of the underlying motivations, Trump’s approach has significantly strained relations with key European allies in early 2025. First, there was the idea of acquiring Greenland, second with Liberation Day announcing 10 percent tariffs for the European Union countries, and third the non-alignment on how to approach a peace deal in Ukraine. Instead of aligning directly with Denmark on how to work together to counter Chinese influence in the Arctic, the US is pushing Europe in a different direction. Russia is the party that benefits most from the redefinition of transatlantic relations. While the US and Europe disagree more and more on economy and defense topics, Russia might be able to better negotiate the terms of the Ukrainian peace deal and benefit from the lack of effectiveness to punish it through sanctions.

Some might say that Trump is returning to US isolationism, with trade barriers and more protectionism. Others might disagree because of the desire to mediate the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and participate in international affairs. The fact is that the symbolic politics that the US is conducting is dangerous for the future of US-Europe relations. Trump’s campaign slogan, “America First,” is in motion, but pushing allies in a different direction regarding defense and economy questions might lead to “America Alone”.

Viktoriya Carvalho is a PhD candidate in International Relations at the University of Lisbon.