Listen to the article
Former President Donald Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on countries that do not support U.S. control of Greenland, marking a revival of his interest in acquiring the autonomous Danish territory.
“I may put a tariff on countries if they don’t go along with Greenland,” Trump stated, though he did not elaborate on which nations would face these potential trade penalties or what form of support he expects from them.
This statement revives a controversial foreign policy position from Trump’s first administration. In 2019, Trump expressed interest in purchasing Greenland from Denmark, describing it as “essentially a large real estate deal.” The proposal was firmly rejected by Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who called the idea “absurd,” prompting Trump to cancel a planned state visit to Denmark.
Greenland, the world’s largest island, is home to approximately 56,000 people and has been an autonomous Danish territory since 1979. While Denmark maintains control over foreign affairs and defense policy, Greenland’s government has authority over most domestic matters. The island holds strategic importance due to its location in the Arctic and its abundant natural resources.
Experts in international relations have expressed concern about Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland and his tariff threats. Dr. Eleanor Winters, professor of international policy at Georgetown University, told reporters, “Using tariffs as leverage to gain territorial control sets a dangerous precedent in modern geopolitics. It represents a return to colonial-era thinking that most nations have long abandoned.”
The strategic importance of Greenland has grown significantly in recent years as climate change opens new shipping routes and makes the region’s vast mineral resources more accessible. The island contains substantial deposits of rare earth minerals critical to technology manufacturing, uranium, and potentially significant oil reserves.
The U.S. already maintains a military presence in Greenland through Thule Air Base, America’s northernmost military installation, which serves as an early warning system for ballistic missile detection and space surveillance.
Trade experts note that Trump’s threatened tariffs could complicate U.S. relationships with European allies, particularly Denmark and other Nordic countries that maintain close ties to Greenland. Jonas Parello-Plesner, director of the Alliance of Democracies Foundation in Copenhagen, suggested that “such unilateral tariff threats over territorial sovereignty could undermine NATO solidarity at a time when Western unity is particularly important.”
The Danish government has not yet responded to Trump’s latest comments. During his presidency, Denmark’s leadership was unequivocal that Greenland was not for sale, a position that remains unchanged under the current administration.
Greenlandic officials have historically emphasized their desire for self-determination. Múte B. Egede, Greenland’s current Prime Minister, has previously stated that “Greenland’s future will be decided by the people of Greenland, not by foreign powers.”
Financial analysts suggest that any move to impose tariffs based on countries’ positions on Greenland would likely face significant legal challenges under World Trade Organization rules, which generally prohibit using tariffs for non-economic political leverage.
The revival of this controversial proposal comes as Trump continues to shape his potential foreign policy agenda ahead of the upcoming U.S. presidential election, highlighting his continued preference for transactional approaches to international relations and willingness to use economic leverage to pursue territorial ambitions.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
From a mining and commodities perspective, Greenland’s untapped mineral wealth is intriguing. However, Trump’s threat of tariffs is concerning and could backfire, damaging relationships with key allies and trading partners. A more diplomatic approach would likely serve U.S. interests better.
While Greenland’s strategic location and resources are understandable, Trump’s proposal to impose tariffs on uncooperative countries seems heavy-handed and unlikely to succeed. Greenland is an autonomous territory, so the U.S. doesn’t have the right to dictate terms to Denmark or other nations.
I’m curious to see how this plays out. Greenland has significant mineral resources like rare earths and uranium, so I can understand the strategic interest. But Trump’s threat of tariffs seems heavy-handed and may backfire. Countries will likely be wary of giving in to such demands.
You raise a good point. Greenland’s natural resources are certainly a factor, but unilaterally trying to control the territory could damage diplomatic relations.
Trump’s suggestion of using tariffs to force countries to support U.S. control of Greenland is concerning. It demonstrates a disregard for international norms and the autonomy of Greenland and Denmark. This heavy-handed tactic is unlikely to succeed and could damage important diplomatic relationships.
This feels like another example of Trump’s brash, transactional approach to foreign policy. Threatening tariffs to get countries to support his Greenland plans is unlikely to be an effective strategy. It could even push Denmark and others further away.
This proposal raises a lot of questions about sovereignty, international law, and the role of economic coercion in foreign policy. While Greenland’s resources may be strategically important, unilaterally trying to control the territory through tariff threats seems like an overreach that could have far-reaching consequences.
I agree, this approach seems to disregard the complexities of Greenland’s status and Denmark’s role. A more cooperative, multilateral strategy would likely be more effective in the long run.
Interesting proposal from Trump, though it’s unclear how he would enforce tariffs on countries that don’t support his Greenland ambitions. Greenland is an autonomous territory, so it’s questionable whether the U.S. has the right to demand support from Denmark or other nations.