Greenland in Trump’s mind: After Venezuela, is the Arctic next?

As global attention remains fixed on recent U.S. actions in Latin America, a new flashpoint is emerging far to the north — one that has unsettled Europe and shaken the foundations of NATO.

From caracas to the Arctic Circle

Fresh off a controversial military operation in Venezuela, the Trump administration is now signaling interest in another dramatic geopolitical shift: bringing Greenland under U.S. control. While the White House has stopped short of confirming any imminent action, officials have openly acknowledged that “a range of options” is being discussed — including military involvement.

The timing has raised eyebrows. For many observers, Greenland appears to be the next strategic domino in a broader recalibration of U.S. power projection, extending from the Global South to the rapidly militarizing Arctic.

Why Greenland matters to Washington

Greenland’s value lies less in its population — fewer than 60,000 people — and more in its geography. Situated between North America and Russia, the island occupies a critical position along emerging Arctic sea routes that are becoming increasingly navigable as ice melts.

The territory also sits at the heart of the GIUK Gap, a long-recognized naval chokepoint linking the Arctic Ocean to the North Atlantic. Control over this corridor has implications for submarine movement, missile detection, and maritime dominance — all core concerns for U.S. defense planners.

🚨VIDEO clip of TRUMP saying :

"We NEED GREENLAND " to the reporters.#Trump#Venezuela#VenezuelaLibre#Greenlandpic.twitter.com/AXODuzCQ7Z

— Harsh Gupta (@harshguptaa03) January 5, 2026

Adding to its appeal is Greenland’s untapped wealth: vast reserves of oil, gas, rare earth elements, and critical minerals essential for modern technologies and military hardware.

Trump’s security argument — and Europe’s alarm

President Trump has framed his interest in Greenland almost entirely through a national security lens. He has repeatedly claimed that Russian and Chinese vessels are increasing their presence around the island, describing the situation as a direct threat to U.S. interests.

European leaders, however, see the rhetoric as destabilizing. Denmark, which oversees Greenland’s foreign affairs despite the island’s self-governing status, has warned that any U.S. attempt to seize Greenland by force would effectively dismantle NATO from within.

That warning carries weight: NATO’s core principle rests on collective defense. An attack by one member against another would challenge the alliance’s very existence.

NATO unity under strain

In response to Washington’s statements, Denmark has rallied diplomatic support across Europe. Leaders from the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and Denmark issued a joint declaration underscoring that Greenland’s future can only be decided by its people and the Danish state.

While acknowledging shared concerns about Arctic security and rival powers’ activities, the European allies emphasized that such challenges must be addressed collectively — not unilaterally — and in line with international law and the UN Charter.

The message was clear: strategic cooperation cannot come at the cost of sovereignty.

Invasion or Acquisition? Mixed signals from Washington

Despite the White House’s hard-edged language, U.S. officials have sent mixed signals. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reportedly told lawmakers that the administration has no plans to invade Greenland, instead floating the idea of purchasing the island — a proposal that has been firmly rejected in the past.

Meanwhile, the State Department has shifted tone, stressing economic engagement and commercial partnerships with Greenland’s population, while reiterating concerns about growing Chinese and Russian activity in the Arctic.

The dual messaging has done little to ease tensions.

A pattern emerging?

Viewed in isolation, the Greenland debate might seem like an eccentric foreign policy episode. But when placed alongside recent U.S. actions in Venezuela, a pattern begins to emerge — one defined by assertive moves in strategically valuable regions under the banner of national security.

Whether Greenland becomes the next focal point of U.S. intervention remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that the Arctic is no longer a frozen backwater of global politics. It is fast becoming a frontline — and Greenland may be at its center.

Also Read: Donald Trump announces withdrawal from 66 global bodies, cuts off funding