Key points
- Trump declared Greenland “essential to US national security” and plans discussions within 20 days
- Danish PM Mette Frederiksen warned US military action against a NATO member would destroy the alliance
- NATO Article 5 states an attack on one member is an attack on all, making Greenland annexation a direct violation
- Nordic countries and Britain have pledged support for Denmark and Greenland’s right to self-determination
- Republican Congressman Thomas Massie introduced a bill in December 2025 demanding US withdrawal from NATO
- Trump demands NATO members increase defense spending to 5% of GDP, up from current 2% target
- US currently contributes 16% of NATO’s total defense budget, the largest share of any member
- The dispute raises questions about NATO’s survival as the world’s oldest military alliance
Immediately after the US military action in Venezuela, President Donald Trump made a major statement regarding Greenland. Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, he said that mineral-rich Greenland is essential to US national security and that he would discuss the matter within 20 days. Trump has long expressed a desire to annex Greenland, but this time his stance is more aggressive.
The timing of Trump’s statement, coming right after the Venezuela operation, signals a broader US strategy to secure critical mineral resources. Greenland holds an estimated 1.5 million tonnes of rare earth elements, plus significant deposits of uranium, zinc, and iron ore, which are vital for defense technology and clean energy transition.
Denmark’s “all-out” warning
Since Greenland is a semi-autonomous part of Denmark, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen adopted a very firm stance in response to Trump’s threat. She issued a clear warning that if the US launched a military attack on any NATO member country, it would be “the beginning of the end of NATO.” She said that any such action would dismantle the entire global security system established after World War II.
Frederiksen’s statement reflects growing European alarm over Trump’s transactional approach to alliances. Denmark, while a small country, has been a loyal NATO member since 1949 and has contributed troops to NATO missions in Afghanistan and the Balkans. The Danish government has made it clear that Greenland’s future is for Greenlanders to decide, not Washington.
Violation of Article 5?
NATO’s fundamental principle is Article 5, which states that an attack on one member country is considered an attack on all member countries. If Trump attempts to forcibly annex Greenland, it would be a direct violation of the NATO charter. The Nordic countries and Britain have also indicated their support for Denmark, upholding Greenland’s right to self-determination.
Article 5 has been invoked only once in NATO’s 76-year history, after the 9/11 attacks on the United States. A US attack on Denmark would represent an unprecedented betrayal of the alliance’s core principle. Military experts warn that such action could trigger a collective defense response from all 32 NATO members, potentially leading to a standoff between allied forces.
Calls for US withdrawal from NATO are also rising in the US
Not only externally, but also within the US, a rebellion against NATO has begun. Republican Congressman Thomas Massie introduced a bill in Congress in December 2025, demanding that the US withdraw from NATO. He argues that after the end of the Cold War, NATO has become merely a financial burden on the US.
Massie’s bill, while unlikely to pass in its current form, reflects a growing isolationist sentiment within the Republican Party’s base. The Kentucky congressman has argued that European nations have become too dependent on US military protection and that the alliance no longer serves American interests. His position aligns with Trump’s long-standing criticism of NATO as “obsolete.”
Dispute over the budget
Money is also a major reason for Trump’s resentment towards NATO. The US alone contributes 16 percent of NATO’s total defense budget. Trump has demanded that other member states spend 5 percent of their GDP on defense, a demand that many European countries have deemed impractical and excessive.
Currently, NATO’s guideline calls for members to spend 2% of GDP on defense, a target only 23 of 32 members are expected to meet in 2025. Trump’s 5% demand would require European nations to increase military spending by hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Germany, France, and Italy have all rejected the proposal as economically unfeasible.
Greenland’s strategic importance
Beyond minerals, Greenland’s location is strategically vital. The US already operates Thule Air Base in northern Greenland, a key part of America’s missile defense system and space surveillance network. Control of the entire island would give the US dominance over Arctic shipping routes and access to vast untapped resources.
Greenland’s population of 56,000 people has mixed feelings about US interest. While some see economic opportunities, most Greenlanders prefer either independence or continued association with Denmark. A 2025 poll showed only 12% of Greenlanders favored US annexation.
NATO’s future at stake
Amidst these tensions, the question is now being raised whether the world’s oldest military alliance is on the verge of collapse. The alliance, formed in 1949, has survived the Cold War, the Balkan conflicts, and the War on Terror, but faces perhaps its greatest internal threat.
European leaders are quietly discussing contingency plans if the US were to withdraw or be expelled from NATO. French President Emmanuel Macron has revived his proposal for a European defense force, while Germany is accelerating its own military modernization. The crisis has also pushed neutral Nordic nations Finland and Sweden, both NATO’s newest members, to take a stronger stance in defense of the alliance.
Latest developments
As of January 2026, the Danish government has summoned the US ambassador in Copenhagen for an official explanation of Trump’s statements. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has called for an emergency meeting of the North Atlantic Council to address the crisis. Meanwhile, Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Bourup Egede has stated that “Greenland is not for sale and will never be for sale,” echoing his 2019 response to Trump’s previous offer.
The US State Department has attempted to downplay the president’s remarks, calling them “hypothetical discussions about long-term strategic interests.” However, Trump’s own social media posts continue to emphasize Greenland’s importance to American security, suggesting this will remain a major foreign policy flashpoint in 2026.
