Trump’s Greenland gambit: Four ways US could assert control

After Donald Trump’s audacious strike on Venezuela, the prospect of American intervention in Greenland—long dismissed as fanciful—now seems plausible.

Jens-Frederik Nielsen, the Greenlandic prime minister, previously described Trump’s annexation plan as a “reckless fantasy,” but recent events have pushed the scenario into serious consideration, a British newspaper writes.

Delivering his state of the union speech last year, President Trump mused about seizing more than 800,000 square miles from a Nato ally. “The incredible people of Greenland,” he told Congress in March, “had every right to determine their own future, and if they were to decide that this future lay within the United States, so much the better. We need it, really, for international world security. One way or the other, we’re going to get it.”

The president has long aired ambitions over the Arctic territory. After the lightning decapitation of the Venezuelan government last weekend, Trump repeated that the US “absolutely” needed Greenland for its own defence, citing the presence of Russian and Chinese ships near the island. Stephen Miller, his powerful homeland security adviser, questioned “by what right” Denmark asserted control.

Experts highlight four potential paths:

Scenario 1: Invasion. Analysts agree the US could seize Greenland by force with little resistance, but warn of operational risks in extreme Arctic conditions and potential blowback. “It would spell the ‘end of Nato,’” Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said, reflecting the strategic and diplomatic peril.

Scenario 2: Coercion. Trump could leverage military threats or financial incentives to persuade Greenlanders to side with Washington. Past US overtures to Denmark and a $12 million aid package to Greenland illustrate how the US has sought influence without formal annexation.

Scenario 3: Free association. Washington may pursue a “compact of free association” with Greenland, similar to arrangements with Palau and Micronesia. Buchanan noted this could “give the Americans a greater measure of control over a strategically vital territory” while allowing Greenland to edge toward independence.

Scenario 4: One man, two guvnors. Greenland could play Denmark and the US against each other, maintaining nominal ties to Copenhagen while gaining American investment and military presence. “Given Trump’s commercial mindset, the maximalist demand we have now [for annexation] is simply the start point of the negotiations,” Buchanan said.

For now, Greenland remains at the centre of a high-stakes geopolitical chess match, with the US asserting strategic ambition, Denmark weighing sovereignty, and the Greenlandic population navigating independence, opportunity, and risk.

By Aghakazim Guliyev