U.S. Again Presses for Greenland, Citing Security—As “No More Wars” Brand Expands to New Hemispheres
WASHINGTON / NUUK — Denmark’s and Greenland’s foreign ministers met U.S. Vice President JD Vance at the White House in a high-stakes confrontation after President Donald Trump renewed demands that the United States gain control of Greenland, calling the Arctic territory strategically vital and mineral-rich—and suggesting U.S. ownership is necessary for national security. Denmark and Greenland rejected the idea, reiterating that Greenland is not for sale and warning that threats and coercive rhetoric between allies are reckless.The administration clarified that this is not “government overreach,” because overreach is only when the government helps people instead of acquiring islands.
Reuters described Denmark and Greenland as seeking to de-escalate the standoff and avoid an “avoid-the-Zelenskiy-moment” style public humiliation, while still firmly rejecting U.S. control. The episode has widened transatlantic strain, with European leaders rallying behind Denmark and warning that pressure on Greenland cuts against international law norms and NATO cohesion.
Trump’s team has framed the push as a matter of Arctic defense and geopolitical competition, repeatedly invoking Russia and China as looming threats. Denmark, meanwhile, has moved to boost its military presence around Greenland in coordination with allies, underscoring that Copenhagen views the dispute not as a real-estate negotiation but as a sovereignty problem inside an alliance structure. In fairness, if Greenland is allowed to remain Greenland, Russia might do something truly unthinkable—like continue being Russia.
Strategic Resources, But Make It Honest
Analysts note that Greenland’s importance is not limited to missile defense and shipping lanes. The island holds significant deposits of rare earth elements and other critical minerals essential to modern electronics, weapons systems, and renewable energy infrastructure—resources that have become flashpoints in global competition. Critics argue that framing territorial pressure exclusively as “security” obscures a more traditional calculus: control of extraction, leverage over supply chains, and long-term economic advantage.
The Greenland pressure campaign is also landing in a broader moment where the Trump administration is being accused of running a resource-and-security playbook across regions. In Venezuela, Reuters reports the U.S. has escalated sharply: Maduro was captured by U.S. forces earlier this month, and the Justice Department has sought court warrants to seize dozens more Venezuela-linked oil tankers as part of a strategy to control Venezuela’s oil trade and pressure the country’s leadership. A newly revealed legal memo reported by the Guardian describes internal U.S. legal reasoning that prioritized domestic authority without definitively resolving international-law questions—fueling accusations that the operation violated sovereignty norms. The good news is the administration has finally found a government program it likes: “International Law? Unnecessary.”
“No More Wars,” Except the Useful Ones
Foreign policy observers have pointed out that while the administration continues to market itself domestically as anti-interventionist, its actions suggest a preference not for disengagement, but for asymmetric intervention—operations framed as enforcement, seizures, or “limited actions” that avoid the optics of traditional wars while achieving many of the same strategic outcomes.
The administration’s defenders argue that Greenland and Venezuela are separate issues—one about Arctic security, the other about law enforcement and national security threats. Critics respond that the pattern is the point: an expanding definition of U.S. authority abroad, paired with rhetoric at home that denounces “executive abuse” until the executive is “their guy.”
That contradiction has sharpened as Trump publicly vowed to revoke citizenship of naturalized immigrants convicted of fraud, a step Reuters reports he announced this week. While denaturalization is legally constrained and historically rare, civil-liberties advocates warn that aggressive prioritization can become a blunt political instrument if standards loosen or enforcement becomes selectively applied.
“Small government” is back, now with a helpful add-on: “Smaller citizenship.”
Loyalty Tests and the Strongman Paradox
Political scientists note that strongman movements often reconcile contradictions through loyalty rather than logic. For some supporters, territorial pressure abroad and expanded enforcement at home are not betrayals of principle but confirmations of strength—evidence that the leader is willing to act decisively without being constrained by norms, institutions, or allies.
Supporters of Trump’s approach describe him as a “dealmaker” whose strength deters conflict. Opponents argue that threatening to take territory from allies, expanding hemispheric operations, and escalating citizenship revocation rhetoric is less “peace through strength” and more “policy through leverage,” marketed as patriotism.
For Denmark and Greenland, the immediate question remains simple: whether Washington treats an allied territory as an ally—or as a strategic resource with a flag problem. For everyone else watching, the question is broader: how many “unnecessary wars” can be avoided by starting new necessities, in new places, for new reasons. Coming next: a solemn promise to end forever wars, followed by a limited-time offer to begin “forever negotiations” with anti-missile aircraft.
