Trump's Greenland Gambit: A Modern Imperial Move?

Nuuk, Greenland: The Trump administration’s renewed interest in Greenland has sparked international backlash, with Denmark and Greenlandic lawmakers resisting what some see as an imperial overreach. At the centre of the controversy is President Donald Trump’s insistence that the US should acquire the Arctic island, even going so far as to say military force remains an option.

The rhetoric from Washington has been striking.
Vice President JD Vance recently accused Denmark of under-investing in Greenland’s security and suggested that the island would be better off aligning with the US. Trump echoed this sentiment in a recent NBC interview, stating that acquiring Greenland is a matter of international security and he would not rule out the use of force.

But to many, this sounds less like security and more like 19th-century imperialism. Greenland’s vast mineral resources and strategic Arctic location have made it a geopolitical prize, and the US push to assert control is drawing comparisons to past interventions and territorial expansions. From the annexation of Hawaii to its long history of involvement in Latin America, the US has repeatedly used a mix of economic leverage and military presence to extend its global influence.

Denmark has responded with frustration. Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen criticised the aggressive tone from the US administration, calling it an inappropriate way to address an ally. He pointed out that Denmark has significantly increased Arctic security investments, committing 2.1 billion dollars to new naval vessels, drones, and satellites.

Meanwhile, the people of Greenland are making their stance clear. Greenlandic lawmakers have formed a new government coalition largely in response to the Trump administration’s push to annex the island. Protests have erupted in Copenhagen, with demonstrators holding signs reading “Back off USA.” Even Greenland’s national dogsled race, Avannaata Qimussersu, was caught in the storm as Usha Vance, the vice president’s wife, withdrew from attending after her husband shifted his focus to military matters.

Despite the resistance, Washington continues to push its narrative. Vance has suggested that Greenland should consider independence from Denmark, implying that the US could be a stronger partner. But critics argue this is a classic divide-and-conquer tactic designed to destabilise the region and create a path for American control.

At the heart of the issue is the question of self-determination. Greenlanders have repeatedly expressed opposition to US annexation, yet their voices seem secondary in the political manoeuvring. Whether through diplomatic pressure, economic incentives, or military threats, the Trump administration’s approach reflects a long-standing US pattern of prioritising strategic interests over the sovereignty of smaller nations. As tensions rise, the future of Greenland remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: both Danish and Greenlandic leaders are not backing down against what they see as a modern imperial play by the United States.