Donald Trump is once again turning his attention to Greenland, and this time, the White House has not ruled out the use of military force.
According to officials, the US president is actively discussing a “range of options” to acquire the vast Arctic territory, including potential military involvement, as Washington frames control of Greenland as a critical national security priority.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said acquiring Greenland was essential to deterring adversaries in the Arctic, describing the Danish territory as strategically vital to US interests.
Greenland is a semi-autonomous region governed by Denmark, a long-standing US ally. While it runs its own domestic affairs, defence and foreign policy remain under Danish control. Both countries are members of Nato, the military alliance that commits its members to mutual defence.
The United States already operates a military base on the island.
Trump first floated the idea of acquiring Greenland in 2019 during his first term in office, a proposal that was swiftly rejected by both Danish and Greenlandic leaders. Despite that, the idea has resurfaced following recent US military action in Venezuela.
On Saturday, US forces abducted Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, over alleged drug trafficking offences, an operation that appears to have emboldened Washington’s foreign policy posture.
Greenland has repeatedly made clear it does not wish to become part of the United States. That stance was echoed this week by leaders from major European nations and Canada, who rallied behind the territory and insisted Greenland “belongs to its people”.
Tensions have continued to rise. On Sunday, Trump also threatened military action against Colombia and Mexico in the aftermath of developments linked to Venezuela, further fuelling concerns among US allies about an increasingly confrontational approach on the world stage.
For now, Denmark has not formally responded to the latest comments, but the renewed focus on Greenland has reopened a sensitive geopolitical debate, one that risks straining alliances in an already volatile global climate.
