Trump’s Renewed Interest in Greenland Sparks European Defense Concerns

U.S. President Donald Trump has reignited tensions with European allies by renewing his administration’s interest in acquiring Greenland, citing security concerns and potential Russian or Chinese influence in the Arctic region.

“I’d love to make a deal with them; it’s easier. But one way or the other, we’re gonna have Greenland,” Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Sunday, reviving a controversial position he first expressed during his previous term in office.

The timing of Trump’s renewed comments has raised particular alarm in European capitals, coming shortly after the United States’ intervention in Venezuela on January 3, where President Nicolás Maduro was captured in what officials described as a “lightning overnight operation.”

European leaders now question how far Washington might go to gain control over Greenland, an autonomous territory that remains part of the Kingdom of Denmark. The situation has prompted serious discussions about NATO’s future, with experts warning that any U.S. military action against Greenland could potentially trigger the collapse of the alliance.

Greenland, while semi-autonomous, falls under Danish sovereignty. Denmark is both a European Union member and a NATO ally of the United States. This creates a complex web of treaty obligations and defense commitments that would be severely tested if Trump’s rhetoric ever evolved into action.

Under normal circumstances, Greenland would be protected by NATO’s Article 5, which states that an armed attack against one member constitutes an attack against all. However, this framework was designed to protect alliance members from external threats, not from each other.

Security analysts point to a lesser-known provision that could come into play: Article 42.7 of the Treaty on European Union. European Commissioner for Defence and Space Andrius Kubilius confirmed to Reuters on Monday that this article obliges EU member states to provide aid and assistance to another member—in this case Denmark—should its territory face armed aggression.

“One of the clause’s strengths is that it can be activated by a single country without requiring advance consensus,” explained Tim Haesebrouck, assistant professor of international politics at Ghent University. Once invoked, other EU countries are expected to respond, though the nature of that assistance remains deliberately open-ended, potentially encompassing economic, political, or military support.

The only previous activation of Article 42.7 occurred following the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks, when France requested assistance in combating the Islamic State group. This precedent, however, offers little guidance for a scenario involving conflict with another NATO member.

Complicating matters further is Greenland’s unique status. The island withdrew from the European Economic Community (predecessor to the EU) in 1985 and is now classified as an Overseas Country and Territory. This means that most EU laws, including defense provisions, may not fully apply to it.

“There has not been an authoritative ruling on whether Article 42.7 extends to territories such as Greenland,” noted Aurel Sari, professor of public international law at the University of Exeter. Even if it does apply, enforcement becomes problematic as defense matters fall outside EU court jurisdiction.

“In the midst of an armed conflict, if your territory is under attack by a major power like the United States, you’re not really going to turn to the courts to try to enforce this assistance,” Sari added.

Military experts also question whether Europe possesses the defense capacity to effectively challenge Washington in a conflict scenario. Haesebrouck points to a fundamental imbalance of power: “The United States would always have escalatory dominance, which actually means that in every stage of escalation, the United States could simply escalate to a higher level and be sure that they will win.”

Alternative responses could include diplomatic pressure or economic sanctions. On Tuesday, Germany’s Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul indicated that his country might take a more significant role in Arctic military security, though he emphasized that any solution should work within the NATO framework.

As tensions simmer, the situation highlights the fragility of transatlantic relations and raises fundamental questions about the future of collective security arrangements that have underpinned European stability for decades. For now, European officials continue to monitor Trump’s statements closely while quietly preparing contingency plans for a scenario they hope will never materialize.