[Salon] Will Trump's fixation on Greenland be the end of NATO? - Guest Post by Charles A. Ray

Will Trump's fixation on Greenland be the end of NATO? By Charles A. Ray - January 7, 2026 There are many things our current president does that boggle the mind, but his obsession with Greenland, even going so far as to tease the use of military force to obtain it if necessary, is the most perplexing of all. During his first administration (2017-2021), Trump expressed an interest in the U.S. acquiring Greenland ‘for national security,’ a claim that was undercut by his then-national security adviser, Mike Walta, suggesting in 2024, that the administration’s focus on Greenland was about ‘critical minerals and natural resources.’ There is no doubt that Greenland is strategically important. The largest island in the world, it lies astride the Greenland, Iceland, UK maritime passage that links the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans, making it essential for controlling access to the North Atlantic, for both commercial and security purposes. As climate change melts Arctic ice, opening more northern shipping routes year-round, the northern region becomes even more critical. Greenland is also rich in natural resources, including oil, gas, and rare earth minerals. China currently dominates the rare earth minerals industry, which is crucial to the global economy, impacting everything from the production of electric vehicles to military equipment. All of this means that the US, China, and Russia are facing off over access to the region. Russia has always viewed the Arctic as strategically important, given that a quarter of its territory lies there, and China has, since 2018, pursued the objective of a ‘polar silk road’ for shipping. All of this is important, but several things often receive insufficient attention when Greenland’s strategic importance is discussed. The first, and arguably most important, is that Greenland is a semiautonomous territory belonging to Denmark, and Denmark is a member of NATO. The Danes colonized Greenland over 300 years ago, and it has home rule since 1979. In 2009, Greenlanders were given the right to hold an independence referendum. Denmark controls Greenland’s foreign policy and defense, and provides an annual subsidy that provides schools, cheap gas, and strong social services. Regarding US efforts to take over, polls show that 85 percent of the island’s population opposes such a move. The second, from a strategic security standpoint, is that the US already has a small military presence in Greenland, at Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base, which was established in 1951. Established initially as a forward early-warning radar station against Soviet missile attacks over the North Pole as part of the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS), it now tracks satellites and other objects in orbit. There has been a consistent record of active collaboration between the US, Denmark, and Greenland regarding American military operations in Greenland. Unless the US-NATO relationship deteriorates, future collaboration, such as the extension of bases or activities, is possible. And therein lies the rub. Since his first term in office, Donald Trump has expressed his doubts about and disdain for NATO, expressing uncertainty that it would come to our defense if we were attacked, and suggesting that the US might abandon its commitments to NATO if members failed to meet defense spending targets. This totally ignores the fact that the only time since its inception that NATO has invoked its collective defense provision was after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the United States. In the wake of the questionable raid on Venezuela on January 2-3, 2026, Trump has once again raised the possibility of ‘’taking Greenland,’ and has not ruled out the possibility of using military force to do it. Denmark’s prime minister, Mette Frederiksen, has said that a US attack against Danish territory would be the end of NATO. Jens-Frederik Nielsen, the prime minister of Greenland, has urged Trump to abandon his fantasies of annexation, and European leaders have voiced support for Denmark and Greenland. From a standpoint of pure military strength, Denmark stands no chance of successfully defending Greenland against a US military assault, but a US attack on a NATO ally would put NATO in an untenable position. It’s hard to imagine a shooting war between the US and its ‘former’ NATO allies, but it would be the end of the alliance. What that might mean for the security of Europe in the face of rising Russian expansionism can only be guessed, and how it would impact US security when we find ourselves standing alone, literally against the rest of the world, is unknowable at this time. For those of us who grew up during the Cold War, knowing that our European allies would be there in times of trouble, a world without allies is a frightening prospect. Another scary thought, though, is whether or not we’re already there. Is this renewed interest in ‘taking Greenland,’ including a possible military option, the straw that has finally broken the camel’s hump? Has Trump finally dealt the alliance a knockout blow, and what will that mean for the future security of the United States? European leaders are discussing a response to this latest Trump transactional move. But, even if cooler heads prevail and the military brass convince Trump and his overly aggressive defense secretary that a military move on Greenland is basically a stupid idea that will weaken rather than strengthen us, will our NATO allies ever be able to fully trust us again, and what does that do to our security? Are we forgetting that our neighbor to the north, Canada, is also a NATO member, and while the Canadian military is no match for ours, that’s a lot of border to have to defend, and Canada has more eyes on the Arctic than we do? So, can we really afford to cut off that source of information? We’ve already seen NATO allies restrict information sharing in the Caribbean because of our bellicose actions there, and it’s not unimaginable that they might do the same in the north, effectively creating dangerous blind spots in our defense network. This is just speculation, but it’s the kind of speculation that national policymakers should be undertaking before we push this rock any farther up a very steep hill. Congress, which has so far been ineffective in reining in a runaway executive’s worst impulses, needs to insert itself into the mix as well. It’s time to put partisan differences aside and think of the needs of the country as a whole, while we still have a country to worry about.