President Donald Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland has triggered the predictable chorus of elite disbelief. Pundits scoff. European officials bristle. Commentators frame the idea as fanciful or provocative. Strip away the noise, however, and the case is simple: U.S. leadership in Greenland is strategically sound, increasingly urgent, and firmly rooted in American national security interests.

In a rapidly militarizing Arctic, the real question is not whether the United States should assume greater control and responsibility in Greenland. It’s whether we can afford not to.

The Arctic is no longer a frozen backwater. It is an emerging theater of great-power competition where geography still matters. Greenland’s location — astride the North Atlantic and Arctic corridors linking North America, Europe and Eurasia — makes it indispensable to the defense of the United States. Any serious strategy to secure the Arctic, deter adversaries and protect North America runs directly through Greenland.

Russia understands this reality. Moscow has rebuilt Cold War-era bases, expanded Arctic military infrastructure, deployed advanced missile systems, and asserted control over polar shipping routes.

China understands it as well. Despite having no legitimate Arctic claim, Beijing now absurdly labels itself a “Near-Arctic State” to justify its growing presence through research stations, infrastructure investments and political influence. The Arctic is becoming another front in China’s global campaign to convert economic leverage into strategic dominance.

The United States cannot allow either power to control this space.

Greenland already plays a critical role in U.S. defense. American radar installations and military assets there are essential for early warning against Russian and Chinese missile threats. As hypersonic weapons compress decision timelines and expand polar attack vectors, Greenland’s strategic value increases. Yet, America’s current posture reflects decades of complacency, not the realities of 21st-century competition.

Denmark, to its credit, is a loyal ally. Few Americans realize that Denmark suffered the highest per-capita killed-in-action rate of any NATO ally during the war in Afghanistan. Copenhagen has pledged to increase Arctic military spending and recognizes the rising threat to the environment. Greenland’s leaders have also signaled openness to an expanded U.S. military presence.

However, goodwill cannot overcome hard limits. Denmark lacks the scale, resources and power-projection capacity to secure Greenland alone against sustained Russian or Chinese pressure.

This is not an indictment of an ally. It is an argument for American leadership.

Critics falsely present a binary choice: either the United States backs off, or it bullies Denmark. That framing is wrong.

U.S., Danish and Greenlandic interests are aligned. All three want the Arctic protected from adversarial influence. All three benefit from a stable, rules-based order rather than one shaped by Russian coercion or Chinese economic capture. And all three understand that only the United States has the capability to guarantee that outcome.

That is why the Trump administration’s approach matters. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has made it clear that the United States seeks to purchase Greenland through negotiation, not force. This is not imperial conquest. It is a strategic consolidation among allies in response to an evolving threat landscape. History shows that peaceful territorial transfers, when conducted transparently and with mutual benefit, can strengthen stability rather than undermine it.

The economic stakes are rising as well. Melting sea ice has opened new shipping lanes, including the Northern Sea Route, dramatically shortening transit times between Europe and Asia. Control over Arctic access will shape global trade for decades. Allowing Russia or China to dictate the terms of Arctic commerce would be a strategic error with lasting consequences.

Greenland also possesses vast, largely untapped mineral reserves, including rare earths critical to advanced technology and military systems. As the United States works to reduce dependence on Chinese-controlled supply chains, securing access to these resources is no luxury. It is a strategic necessity.

Opponents invoke abstract notions of sovereignty while ignoring practical realities. Sovereignty without security is an illusion. Left to its own, Greenland will face relentless pressure from adversarial powers seeking influence through investment, infrastructure and political leverage. Washington has seen this pattern repeatedly.

Waiting until the threat becomes acute is how America loses strategic ground.

Taking responsibility now — through a negotiated agreement that respects Denmark and the people of Greenland — would lock in Western control of the Arctic, strengthen NATO’s northern flank, and significantly enhance the defense of the United States.

The world is safer when the United States leads. In the Arctic, leadership means recognizing that Greenland is not a curiosity or a punchline. It is a strategic linchpin. Trump is right to place it at the center of America’s Arctic strategy, and Washington should have the resolve to follow through.

_____

ABOUT THE WRITER

Paul McCarthy is a senior research fellow for European affairs in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at The Heritage Foundation. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.

_____

©2026 Tribune Content Agency, LLC