As Greenland’s strategic value continues to rise, President-elect Donald Trump’s assertions of U.S. control over the Arctic territory have brought renewed focus to its geopolitical significance. A new Wikistrat report explores four scenarios for U.S. involvement in Greenland. From diplomatic accords to coercive strategies, the report analyzes the drivers, challenges, and implications of each scenario, shedding light on how these developments could impact U.S. foreign policy, NATO unity, and the balance of power in the Arctic
Introduction
In January 2025, President-elect Donald Trump once again brought Greenland into the geopolitical spotlight, describing control of the Arctic island as an “absolute necessity” for America’s national security. His comments, which were bolstered by an informal visit from his son, Donald Trump Jr. to the island have revived debates over Greenland’s sovereignty, and the ongoing precious minerals and Arctic strategy of the U.S. and other key actors.
Background
The island’s location serves as a critical link between North America, Europe, and the Arctic, making it a pivotal hub for projecting power and safeguarding interests in the region. The U.S. already maintains a substantial presence through the Pituffik (Thule) Air Base, which is integral to its missile defense system and Arctic strategy.
As Arctic ice continues to melt, opening new shipping lanes and access points, Greenland’s importance in the evolving Arctic race grows even more pronounced, positioning it as a key node in the broader geopolitical competition, a topic explored in the 2013, How the Arctic Was Won Wikistrat’s simulation.
In a series of interviews with Wikistrat experts, Greenland's vast reserves of rare earth minerals was highlighted, as they are essential for manufacturing advanced technologies, defense systems, and renewable energy infrastructure.
Methodology
To explore the downstream consequences of U.S. acquisition of Greenland, this analysis adopts a scenario-planning approach centered on two essential strategic questions: How might the U.S. acquire Greenland, and what are the broader geopolitical implications of such an acquisition? This framework examines two types of scenarios: "carrot" scenarios, which consider peaceful, voluntary acquisition through diplomatic or economic incentives, and "stick" scenarios, which explore coercive measures, whether economic or military.
This report does not advocate for any specific scenario but instead seeks to provide a deeper understanding of the evolving situation surrounding the Trump’s administration ambitions in Greenland. The primary objective is to explore how this issue might unfold and analyze the potential implications of various policy decisions. Scenario planning, a widely recognized analytical tool, offers a structured framework to evaluate strategic options and contextualize complex geopolitical dynamics.
Scenario I: The Greenland Accord: A Hong Kong-Lease Meets Puerto Rico-Status Proposal
Outline
In 2025, amid escalating tensions between the U.S. and Denmark over Arctic strategy and trade disputes, relations between the two nations hit a historic low. The U.S. administration, led by Donald Trump, emphasized Greenland’s strategic and economic value, increasing pressure on Denmark to reconsider its control over the island. By 2026, the Trump administration proposed a unique agreement blending a Hong Kong-style lease with Puerto Rico-type territorial status. The U.S. would lease Greenland from Denmark for an extended period, providing substantial trade benefits for both Denmark and Greenland. In return, Greenland would become a U.S. dependent territory under American sovereignty. The agreement included provisions for a referendum to be held by the end of the lease period, allowing Greenlanders to vote on either joining the U.S. as a state or achieving full independence.
By 2028, the agreement was fully implemented. The U.S. assumed administrative and strategic control of Greenland while preparing for the eventual independence referendum. Greenlanders welcomed the opportunity to chart their future, either as the 51st U.S. state or as a fully independent nation, free from Danish or U.S. governance.
Implications
The Greenland Accord redefined U.S.-Danish relations. While initial tensions were high, the economic benefits offered by the U.S. created a stronger partnership. Denmark gained privileged trade status, fostering significant economic growth and diplomatic alignment with the U.S. Greenland’s economy also benefited from increased investment, infrastructure development, and trade opportunities. NATO allies, including Germany and France, cautiously supported the arrangement, viewing it as a strategic move to counter Russia and China in the Arctic, though concerns lingered about the implications for territorial sovereignty and international norms.
For the U.S., the agreement represented a significant step in consolidating its Arctic strategy. The lease provided secure access to rare earth minerals, key shipping routes, and enhanced military positioning, particularly at the Pituffik (Thule) Air Base. The referendum demonstrated a commitment to democratic values, balancing strategic interests with Greenlanders’ aspirations. However, the move further intensified competition with Arctic rivals like Russia and China, increasing the region’s geopolitical complexity.
Drivers
Greenlanders’ long-standing and growing desire for self-determination, was a key driver of this scenario. The proposal offered a peaceful and structured pathway to independence while addressing economic challenges and ensuring development. For the U.S., the Arctic’s rising strategic significance, driven by climate change and resource competition, created a compelling reason to act decisively, outmaneuvering rivals like Russia and China in the region. The Trump administration’s bold approach appealed to both American strategic goals and Greenland’s aspirations for autonomy.
Scenario II: Greenland’s Stakeholder Governance: U.S. Minority Shares in the Island’s Future
Outline
In 2025, as tensions over Greenland’s strategic importance grew, President Trump proposed a governance framework combining U.S. strategic involvement and Greenland’s aspirations for autonomy. By 2026, an agreement was reached granting the United States minority shares in Greenland’s governance, primarily in the areas of security and foreign policy. Denmark retained a symbolic political status, recognizing its historical ties to Greenland, but no longer played an active role in the island’s governance or decision-making. As part of the deal, the U.S. assumed and significantly increased the economic subsidies previously provided by Denmark, focusing on infrastructure development, education, and economic diversification.
By 2028, Greenland’s government, empowered by its majority stake and veto power in the governance system, used the arrangement to advance its independence agenda. The transition to U.S. financial support and reduced Danish involvement marked a turning point for Greenland, reframing its relationships with both nations. The agreement, celebrated by Trump as a transformative geopolitical deal, ensured that Greenland retained its sovereignty while benefiting from robust U.S. financial and security backing.
Implications
The agreement redefined the region’s geopolitical and economic landscape. It provided the U.S. with influence over Arctic security while granting access to Greenland’s untapped rare earth minerals, furthering Trump’s vision of America as a dominant global power. Denmark preserved its special political and economic partnership with Greenland while easing the financial burden of subsidies. Trump promoted the agreement as a business triumph, solidifying his reputation as a bold negotiator who turned Greenland into an asset for U.S. interests.
For Greenland, the model represented a critical step toward independence, allowing its leadership to assert greater control over domestic affairs while securing essential foreign support for defense and economic development. The agreement provided Greenland with a unique platform to balance its sovereignty ambitions with the need for strategic partnerships. However, the deal introduced significant tensions within NATO, as allies such as Germany and France expressed concerns about the precedent set by the arrangement and its potential to strain unity within the alliance. Moreover, the increased U.S. presence in Greenland and its expanded influence in the Arctic heightened tensions with Russia, which viewed the agreement as a direct challenge to its Arctic interests.
Drivers
Greenland’s growing push for independence, driven by dissatisfaction with Danish governance and a desire for self-determination, has been a central driver of this scenario. Inuit leaders and the population view the governance framework as a pragmatic pathway to autonomy, allowing them to assert control over their resources and cultural identity while securing foreign support for defense and economic development.
Simultaneously, many Danes have grown increasingly frustrated with the financial burden of subsidies to Greenland, seeing them as costly and unsustainable. At the same time, domestic pressure in Denmark to address perceptions of colonial overreach has intensified, with calls to modernize the relationship and avoid imposing control over Greenland.
Scenario III: U.S. Coercive Strategy and Arctic Power Rivalry
Outline
In 2025, frustrated by the lack of progress in negotiations with Denmark and Greenland, the Trump administration unilaterally expanded the U.S. military presence in Greenland. Declaring Greenland a vital component of U.S. national security, the administration deployed additional troops to the Pituffik (Thule) Space Base, upgraded missile defense systems, and established new Arctic-capable infrastructure. Coupled with economic measures such as tariffs on Danish exports and restrictions on Greenlandic trade, the U.S.’s actions were framed as necessary to counter growing threats in the Arctic.
The increased U.S. presence triggered an immediate and forceful response from Russia, which viewed the militarization of Greenland as a direct threat to its Arctic interests. In 2026, Russia escalated its own activities and conducting high-profile Arctic military exercises. These actions initiated a spiraling dynamic of escalation between the two powers, creating heightened tensions in the Arctic. By 2028, Denmark, under sustained pressure and fearing Russian actions, agreed to grant the U.S. special status in managing Greenland’s security and foreign affairs, further solidifying the U.S. presence.
Implications
The U.S.’s unilateral actions and subsequent Russian response created a dangerous spiral of militarization in the Arctic, heightening superpower tensions and significantly destabilizing the region. NATO cohesion was severely tested, as European allies such as Germany and France criticized the U.S.’s coercive approach, which they viewed as reckless and counterproductive.
The Arctic, once regarded as a relatively stable zone of strategic cooperation, became a theater of great power rivalry, with the potential for miscalculation and conflict increasing sharply. Russian military maneuvers and Arctic exercises further strained U.S.-Russia relations, adding fuel to already volatile superpower tensions.
Drivers
Russia consistently seeks to exploit fractures within the NATO alliance to temper its unity and diminish its collective influence. The dynamics of a Trump presidency further exacerbate these tensions, as his historical approach to NATO, with demands from members states for increased defense spending have previously created discord. Against this backdrop, unilateral U.S. actions in Greenland would serve as a flashpoint, allowing Russia to amplify its narrative of NATO disunity while escalating its own military activities in the Arctic to further weaken alliance cohesion.
Scenario IV: The U.S. Coercive Strategy to Undermine Danish-Greenlandic Relations
Outline
In 2025, the Trump administration shifted to a dual-track strategy combining coercion with selective incentives to assert U.S. control over Greenland. Toward Denmark, the administration employed aggressive tactics, including threats of tariffs on critical Danish exports and public statements questioning Denmark’s ability to manage Greenland’s security and resources. Toward Greenland’s local government, the U.S. adopted a softer approach, offering promises of a governance model akin to "Greenland meets Puerto Rico," allowing Greenland significant autonomy under U.S. oversight with the option to pursue full independence at any time.
The strategy sought to exploit existing tensions between Greenland and Denmark. By 2026, the initiative destabilized Danish-Greenlandic relations. By 2028, Denmark, under economic and diplomatic pressure, agreed to grant the U.S. a significant role in Greenland’s security and foreign affairs, though it retained symbolic input on resource management and Arctic policy.
Implications
The U.S.’s coercive strategy created significant strains within the NATO alliance, as European allies criticized the unilateral tactics and the destabilization of a long-standing partnership between Denmark and Greenland. Germany and France expressed concerns over the erosion of alliance cohesion, warning that such actions could embolden adversaries like Russia.
One of the downstream unintended consequences of the U.S. policy in Greenland was the resurgence of nationalist conflicts globally, with nations seeking U.S. support to challenge perceived "colonial" territorial disputes. Argentina, inspired by the Greenland scenario, called on the Trump administration to assist in ending the United Kingdom's control over the Falkland Islands, framing it as an opportunity to restore sovereignty to its rightful owner. Similarly, Morocco reignited its territorial claims against Spain over Ceuta and Melilla, seeking to leverage U.S. rhetoric on supporting independence movements to bolster its case.
Drivers
Trump’s rhetoric and outreach, particularly during high-profile moments such as Donald Trump Jr.’s 2025 visit to Nuuk, have amplified existing narratives of Danish neglect in Greenland.
Meanwhile, Russia is always actively working to undermine NATO unity by highlighting divisions within the alliance, Russia seeks to deepen internal rifts and weaken NATO’s collective resolve.
Strategic Takeaways
Impact on U.S.-NATO Relations: The scenarios demonstrate that any U.S. move toward Greenland will have significant repercussions for U.S.-NATO relations. Actions perceived as unilateral or coercive could erode alliance cohesion, strain diplomatic ties, and weaken NATO’s collective unity, particularly as key allies like Germany and France are likely to view such actions as destabilizing.
Russia and Arctic Dynamics :Tensions between the U.S. and NATO are advantageous for Russia, which could leverage such discord to its benefit. As a strategic response, Russia—and potentially China—may escalate their presence in the Arctic region. However, their primary objective would not be to dominate the Arctic per se but to provoke U.S. unilateral actions that further harm NATO’s unity and destabilize regional dynamics.
Escalation of Other Territorial Conflicts: A U.S. strategy that seeks to turn Greenland’s local government against Denmark, as suggested by Donald Trump Jr.’s recent statements, could set a precedent for escalating other territorial disputes involving NATO members. Examples include Argentina seeking U.S. support against the UK over the Falklands or Morocco pressing territorial claims against Spain. Such ripple effects would compound intra-NATO tensions and create further challenges for alliance cohesion.
The Role of Greenland’s Local Government: The scenarios underscore that the key to any successful U.S. initiative regarding Greenland lies with the local government, not Denmark. If Greenland’s leadership aligns with U.S. diplomatic efforts, it would be challenging for Denmark to oppose without appearing to infringe on Greenland’s self-determination. This is particularly critical as Danish sovereignty over Greenland is already contested by segments of the Greenlandic population.
Trump’s Arctic Strategy:President Trump’s desire for control over Greenland is driven not only by personal legacy ambitions but also by strategic imperatives tied to the intensifying superpower competition in the Arctic. The U.S. seeks to secure its position in a region of growing geopolitical importance, fueled by Russia and China’s actions and the broader race for Arctic dominance. This strategic backdrop elevates Greenland’s value as a critical node in U.S. security and foreign policy.