US threatens to annex Greenland - 2025/2026

[otto]

This is how the US government would approach the environmentally sensitive Arctic region and Greenland:

"Donald Trump has never been mistaken for an environmentalist, having long called the climate crisis a “giant hoax” and repeatedly lauding the supposed virtues of fossil fuels.
But the US president’s onslaught upon the natural world in this administration’s first 100 days has surprised even those who closely charted his first term, in which he rolled back environmental rules and tore the US from the Paris climate agreement.

This time, the mantra “drill, baby, drill” has been used to justify a hyperactive series of actions to reverse rules designed to protect clean air and water, open up vast tracts of land, ocean and even the seabed to mining, fire federal scientists en masse and downgrade the federal response to the disasters that stem from a warming world.

... the administration has made it a priority to shrink land management agencies, reduce protections once governed by them and possibly even diminish the holdings of lands under federal jurisdiction.
...

• Plans to rescind Bureau of Land Management rules that protect millions of acres in Alaska and across the US west; planned repeal of BLM Public Lands Rule.
• Emergency situation determination issued by the USDA to open logging on more than 100m acres of national forests and an executive orders to increase and accelerate logging on federal lands. And revoked a Biden order that protected old-growth forests.

‘A ruthless agenda’: charting 100 days of Trump’s onslaught on the environment

Guardian reporters map out how Trump is eviscerating efforts to protect the natural world – from ‘drill, baby, drill’ to mass firings

www.theguardian.com

~ in my humble opinion ~​

 

[Inthedetails]

A Republican congressman has introduced legislation that would give U.S. President Donald Trump the authority to annex Greenland and even make it a U.S. state, despite opposition from other members of the party to the threatened takeover of a NATO territory.....

Rep. Randy Fine of Florida, a staunch Trump ally, announced his Greenland Annexation and Statehood Act on Monday as a bid to support Trump’s national security goals in the Arctic and “put our adversaries on notice.”

The two-page bill would authorize Trump to “take such steps as may be necessary, including by seeking to enter into negotiations with the Kingdom of Denmark, to annex or otherwise acquire Greenland as a territory of the United States....

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is set to meet with Danish and Greenlandic officials in Washington on Wednesday.

Republican bill seeks to greenlight Trump’s takeover of Greenland - National | Globalnews.ca

The two-page bill would authorize Trump to 'take such steps as may be necessary' to annex Greenland and fast-track making the territory the 51st state.

globalnews.ca

 

[otto]

The Netherlands is joining other countries with the decision to deploy military troops to Greenland upon request in order to confront any attempt by the United States to use military force to steal Greenland and natural resource wealth.

Is anyone else wondering why the United States cannot afford to buy the resources?

"The House of Representatives supports a possible additional Dutch military contribution to the NATO presence in Greenland. A narrow majority of the [political] parties support an SGP proposal that calls on the caretaker government to actively work with other European countries within NATO to strengthen its presence in the region.
...

Trump has also repeatedly stated that he is interested in Greenland's rich mineral reserves.
...

The US is threatening to buy or invade the country, part of the Kingdom of Denmark, if necessary.
...

Defense Minister Brekelmans said late last week that the Netherlands is prepared to contribute militarily to Greenland if requested to do so by NATO countries"

Kamer steunt mogelijke extra militaire aanwezigheid Groenland

Een meerderheid in de Kamer geeft het kabinet groen licht om defensie een inzet op Groenland te laten onderzoeken.

nos.nl

" ... the US federal deficit is projected at $US1.7 trillion ($2.5 trillion) this year. That shortfall needs to be financed by debt, which now stands at an eye-watering $US38 trillion."

Markets shudder as White House goes to war with everyone

In the past week, the US has dramatically expanded and accelerated its attacks both inside and outside its borders. Here's where Australia stands in the fray.

www.abc.net.au

 

[otto]

I'm curious how the United States government envisions a military takeover of a sovereign NATO country. NATO Article 5 requires that parties to the North Atlantic Treaty “agree” to assist States that are the victims of an armed attack. An armed attack against Greenland requires that 32 countries, including Canada and the US, defend Greenland. If the US is the attacker, then it is 31 countries defending Greenland.

The US attacking NATO's founding member countries of: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and the United Kingdom, and 20 other countries, is a crazy idea where only China and Russia benefit.

Does the United States envision killing Greenlanders while kidnapping their government leaders? Is the plan to kidnap the King of Denmark? What's the plan - shoot everyone who doesn't allow theft of their land and resources?

Why isn't the United States government doing the usual threat with tariffs? Do they not work with Greenland? Is it because Economic War against Canada isn't working?

~ in my humble opinion ~​

 

[Gators North]

The Netherlands is joining other countries with the decision to deploy military troops to Greenland upon request in order to confront any attempt by the United States to use military force to steal Greenland and natural resource wealth.

Is anyone else wondering why the United States cannot afford to buy the resources?

"The House of Representatives supports a possible additional Dutch military contribution to the NATO presence in Greenland. A narrow majority of the [political] parties support an SGP proposal that calls on the caretaker government to actively work with other European countries within NATO to strengthen its presence in the region.
...

Trump has also repeatedly stated that he is interested in Greenland's rich mineral reserves.
...

The US is threatening to buy or invade the country, part of the Kingdom of Denmark, if necessary.
...

Defense Minister Brekelmans said late last week that the Netherlands is prepared to contribute militarily to Greenland if requested to do so by NATO countries"

Kamer steunt mogelijke extra militaire aanwezigheid Groenland

Een meerderheid in de Kamer geeft het kabinet groen licht om defensie een inzet op Groenland te laten onderzoeken.

nos.nl

" ... the US federal deficit is projected at $US1.7 trillion ($2.5 trillion) this year. That shortfall needs to be financed by debt, which now stands at an eye-watering $US38 trillion."

Markets shudder as White House goes to war with everyone

In the past week, the US has dramatically expanded and accelerated its attacks both inside and outside its borders. Here's where Australia stands in the fray.

www.abc.net.au

Yeah, those tariffs are really working out.
JMO

 

[otto]

The UK, Germany and the Netherlands have indicated that they will move troops to Greenland (linked upthread).

The United States have indicated they will steal Greenland from Greenlanders using military force (linked upthread).

The United States declaring war on Denmark, Greenland, the UK, Germany, the Netherlands ... and of course Canada has to defend the Kingdom of Denmark and Greenland ... is asking for a world war where the united states is on its own. What's the end game? Global destruction?

Does the United States federal government understand international politics, or are they limited by "me see, me want, me take."

~ in my humble opinion ~​

 

[Inthedetails]

Yeah, those tariffs are really working out.
JMO

A quick google search tells me that Greenland exports fish to USA but we are not a large market for Greenland. Their biggest market, understandably, is Denmark.

I don't think tariffs are on the table in this situation. imo

jmopinion

 

[otto]

Yeah, those tariffs are really working out.
JMO

 

[Gators North]

No, the US federal government does not understand international politics. Not because they can’t, but because they don’t want to.

The US will never be able to fight a war on so many fronts. I really hate to say this, but I’m terrified of WWIII, and the wrong people in Washington have the nuclear codes. They will not back down from their dreams of global domination.

I’m sorry to be pessimistic, but I don’t have rose-colored glasses; I’m a realist (AND an American) and I can clearly see what’s happening. IMO, MOO, JMO.

 

[Gators North]

A quick google search tells me that Greenland exports fish to USA but we are not a large market for Greenland. Their biggest market, understandably, is Denmark.

I don't think tariffs are on the table in this situation. imo

jmopinion

I was being a little sarcastic, but yeah, you’re right.

 

[Summerliz03]

For anyone surprised about the US governments desire and plan to acquire/invade/annex Greenland, it is all laid out in Project 2025, it’s on page 190. So this has been in the works with Trump and his administration for a long while now. I fully believe Trump will do whatever means necessary to take Greenland, and if it ends up being by military force, god help us all. MOO.

https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

 

[Inthedetails]

I was being a little sarcastic, but yeah, you’re right.

Oops. My humor button is stuck. I'll wiggle it to get the connection back.

 

[otto]

For anyone surprised about the US governments desire and plan to acquire/invade/annex Greenland, it is all laid out in Project 2025, it’s on page 190. So this has been in the works with Trump and his administration for a long while now. I fully believe Trump will do whatever means necessary to take Greenland, and if it ends up being by military force, god help us all. MOO.

https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

The United States appears to be untruthful about the reasons for wanting to steal Greenland.

If it was true that the United States is worried about security, NATO is in place to address those concerns. The United States has no reason to presume that they alone should be responsible for Arctic security. NATO has already taken actions to increase Arctic security. As a NATO member, the united states needs to cooperate rather than threaten.

If the United States is untruthful about the reasons for wanting Greenland, and the motive is to steal resources and bypass environmental law, then the united states must be stopped at all cost.

~ in my humble opinion ~​

 

[otto]

For anyone surprised about the US governments desire and plan to acquire/invade/annex Greenland, it is all laid out in Project 2025, it’s on page 190. So this has been in the works with Trump and his administration for a long while now. I fully believe Trump will do whatever means necessary to take Greenland, and if it ends up being by military force, god help us all. MOO.

https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

Thank you for the link! I need to read more - on the surface it looks like some aspects are open to interpretation.

"Concerning Greenland, the opening of a U.S. consulate in Nuuk is welcome. Aformal year-round diplomatic presence is an effective way for the U.S. to betterunderstand local political and economic dynamics. Furthermore, given Greenland’s geographic proximity and its rising potential as a commercial and touristlocation, the next Administration should pursue policies that enhance economicties between the U.S. and Greenland.
...

Established an office in Greenland to help counter China’s claims of being “anear Arctic state” and reoriented its programming across Asia—includingestablishing a USAID Mission to Central Asia—in line with America’s IndoPacific strategy.
...

The U.S. should unapologetically pursue American interests in the Arctic by promoting economic freedom in the region. Economic freedom spurs prosperity, innovation, respect for the rule of law, jobs, and sustainability. Most important, economic freedom can help to keep the Arctic stable and secure.

The U.S. should work to ensure that shipping lanes in the Arctic remain available to all global commercial traffic and free of onerous fees and burdensome administrative, regulatory, and military requirements. While this should be the next Administration’s policy with respect to all countries that might seek to block free-flowing commercial traffic, the next Administration will clearly have to exert substantial attention toward Russia."

https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

 

[Summerliz03]

Thank you for the link! I need to read more - on the surface it looks like some aspects are open to interpretation.

"Concerning Greenland, the opening of a U.S. consulate in Nuuk is welcome. Aformal year-round diplomatic presence is an effective way for the U.S. to betterunderstand local political and economic dynamics. Furthermore, given Greenland’s geographic proximity and its rising potential as a commercial and touristlocation, the next Administration should pursue policies that enhance economicties between the U.S. and Greenland.
...

Established an office in Greenland to help counter China’s claims of being “anear Arctic state” and reoriented its programming across Asia—includingestablishing a USAID Mission to Central Asia—in line with America’s IndoPacific strategy.
...

The U.S. should unapologetically pursue American interests in the Arctic by promoting economic freedom in the region. Economic freedom spurs prosperity, innovation, respect for the rule of law, jobs, and sustainability. Most important, economic freedom can help to keep the Arctic stable and secure.

The U.S. should work to ensure that shipping lanes in the Arctic remain available to all global commercial traffic and free of onerous fees and burdensome administrative, regulatory, and military requirements. While this should be the next Administration’s policy with respect to all countries that might seek to block free-flowing commercial traffic, the next Administration will clearly have to exert substantial attention toward Russia."

https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

Yes IMO, a lot of Project 2025 is written to be somewhat “ambiguous” in its phrasing. There are parts of it that are very direct and lay out exact plans for certain topics but others are kind of broad and open to interpretation. I think that’s fully by design. But it’s more the fact that I think Trump has wanted Greenland for a long time (Project 2025 was published back in 2023, but it was probably being drafted way before that, it’s a 900 page document with many different contributors) I personally believe Trump just wants to control the entire Western Hemisphere and he knows he needs Greenland to make this happen, both for their actual location in the Artic as well as their natural resources. All MOO.

 

[Herat]

I saw a wonderful TV program about Football ( soccer ) in Greenland and the lives of the players. They have some very good players, several of which were featured on the program and were impressive men in their own right.

They have 76 registered football clubs, of which there are 8 major teams. In 2024 they applied to be part of CONCACAF, which is the Northern American hemisphere section of FIFA. However, in 2025 their application was denied.
Presumably the distance other teams would have to travel and the conditions would be a huge part of the problem

What I took from it was that there is a very tight-knit community of people that love being Greenland, and they are very proud of their heritage and skills.

Their population is 90% Greenland Inuit, known as Kalallit, and only 10% Danish or other Europeans. They are rightfully very proud of their ancestry. Taking anything from them therefore becomes violating the rights and land ownership of native Greenland peoples.

Greenland just want to play soccer. Will Concacaf give them a spot?

Greenland has a thriving soccer culture among its 56,000-strong population, but nowhere to play due to being part of Denmark. Having applied to join the U.S., Mexico and Canada in Concacaf, will they soon get their shot?

www.espn.com

 

[Andreee]

Similar to the US government giving political reasons to assert authority in Venezuela and then targeting oil, the same rhetoric is used to acquire Greenland's mineral wealth. Greenland has passed legislation that prevents extraction of mineral wealth that damages the environment. I think that the US government wants to annex Greenland in order to bypass environmental law.

"There were reports over the weekend that a group of countries — led by the U.K. and Germany — are discussing a military presence on the Arctic island as a hedge against American annexation.
...

Rutte ... [discussions] are simply an extension of talks which began midway through last year at the request of seven allied Arctic nations, including the United States. ... The idea appears to be to convince Trump that NATO is as interested as he is in beefing up the defences of the island territory.
...

The online U.S. publication Defence News reported last fall that the radar site at the Americans' Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base) in Greenland is vulnerable to attack by hypersonic missiles, which can neither be detected nor shot down.
...

During a meeting with oil executives over Venezuela last week, Trump played up the importance of Greenland's mineral wealth in his grand scheme.
...

What Trump has failed to acknowledge is that Greenland has for a long time been trying to attract U.S. and Western investment in its critical minerals sector without much success. Last spring, Greenland's minister for business and mineral resources warned Western disinterest may force the territory to seek partnerships with China.
...

Rare earth deposits ... has led to fierce political opposition, including the passage of legislation by the territory that obstructed further mine licensing by banning the development of deposits with a uranium concentration over 100 parts per million."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/arctic-nato-us-denmark-greenland-defence-9.7042833

~ in my humble opinion ~​

Interesting. By the way, Canada is ope

I saw a wonderful TV program about Football ( soccer ) in Greenland and the lives of the players. They have some very good players, several of which were featured on the program and were impressive men in their own right.

They have 76 registered football clubs, of which there are 8 major teams. In 2024 they applied to be part of CONCACAF, which is the Northern American hemisphere section of FIFA. However, in 2025 their application was denied.
Presumably the distance other teams would have to travel and the conditions would be a huge part of the problem

What I took from it was that there is a very tight-knit community of people that love being Greenland, and they are very proud of their heritage and skills.

Their population is 90% Greenland Inuit, known as Kalallit, and only 10% Danish or other Europeans. They are rightfully very proud of their ancestry. Taking anything from them therefore becomes violating the rights and land ownership of native Greenland peoples.

Greenland just want to play soccer. Will Concacaf give them a spot?

Greenland has a thriving soccer culture among its 56,000-strong population, but nowhere to play due to being part of Denmark. Having applied to join the U.S., Mexico and Canada in Concacaf, will they soon get their shot?

www.espn.com

I am not a political person and I don't adhere to any particular party in Canada, but our present prime minister is doing a good job of dealing with Trump via lowkey efforts. We are also soon getting a Canadian consulate in Greenland's capital, just as a way of establishing Canada there in representation and support. I truly hope Trump is not allowed by his military generals and the Congress to invade Greenland, as it will cause retaliation by NATO IMO. And lead to unnecessary hardship for all, to put it mildly. IMO Canada To Open Consulate in Nuuk, Greenland I think we all know by now that the US has a military base already in Greenland, and has closed a number of others there that were deemed not necessary. But have been welcomed as needed.

 

[branmuffin]

Northwest Passage
View attachment 635631

Northwest Passage - Arctic Portal - The Arctic Gateway

The Northwest Passage is first and foremost considered to be continuous passage between islands and the continental mainland of Canada rather than an actua

arcticportal.org

Northwest Passage | Definition, Explorers, Map, & Facts | Britannica

Northwest Passage, historical sea passage of the North American continent. It represents centuries of effort to find a route westward from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean through the Arctic Archipelago of what became Canada. Learn more about the Northwest Passage in this article.

www.britannica.com

Transpolar Sea Route (yellow route): does not exist, melt may open the route in 2050. Northwest Passage green, and Russian purple, routes are used today.

View attachment 635633

What is Transpolar Sea Route?

Marine Insight - The maritime industry guide.

www.marineinsight.com

Is it wise to bust up the arctic ice cap?

It's melting which is why they think the central route will be a consideration.

 

[Twick]

So the US can't invest? They have to own?

This administration does not appear to want to play well with anyone else. Denmark would likely have annoying labour, safety and ecological regulations.

 

[branmuffin]

Russia is the largest country in the world, Canada is second, US is fourth. The current US government wants to expand territory, presumably to be Bigger and Biggest.

What would happen if NATO closed all US military bases? That is a consequence of destroying NATO. It could be interpreted in many ways, but I think the US would lose status globally, especially with China and Russia.

"European leaders, led by French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friederich Merz and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, have been trying to emphasize diplomacy, in an effort to convince Trump that he can achieve all his political goals without physically taking over Greenland and destroying the NATO alliance.

"I think we're starting to see that this is not really about either national security, international security or resources."

"I think it's about Trump's legacy. I think it's about him wanting to expand American territory."
...

"It would mean the end of NATO," said Kerry Buck, a former Canadian ambassador to NATO between 2015 and 2019.
...

European leaders have repeatedly told Trump that the current arrangement with Denmark gives the U.S. military freedom to use the island more or less as it wishes.
...

"If you take it, we will take every single base of the Americans, from Aviano from Ramstein, from Romania to all the other military bases — [they] will be confiscated, you will lose it — if you take Greenland," Gunther Fehlinger, chairman of the Austrian Committee for NATO Enlargement, said in a podcast."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/greenland-diplomacy-trump-9.7036209

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.7037609

There were 84000 US military members in 2022 stationed in EU countries. The majority of those are in Germany since it had the most and earliest bases, I guess because of the occupation by Allied nations after WW2. Otto, do you know how US military personnel enter any of their bases? Do they fly into their own airbases and bypass customs? Or are they required to go through customs like any other person? I would think that at this point in time with all the rhetoric which is escalating, that countries like Germany, UK, and Italy might be considering terminating agreements that have been around for 80 years. When Russian accelerated their invasion of Ukrain in 2022 the US sent an additional 20000 troops so the tally is nearly 100K US troops in Europe. Is there any kind of watch going on by NATO members of the movement of US troops in Europe?