Arctic expert on the Greenland conflict "We have become a rogue state - and Trump is proud of it"
In Greenland, US President Trump's claims to ownership are met with rejection.
Image: Keystone/AP/Christian Klindt Soelbeck/Ritzau Scanpix Foto
The USA wants to take control of the world's largest island.
Image: Keystone/AP/Evgeniy Maloletka
Exhausted faces: Denmark's Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen (l.) and his Greenlandic counterpart Vivian Motzfeldt after the meeting with JD Vance and Marco Rubio in Washington on January 14, 2026.
Image: Keystone/EPA/Shawn Thew
Denmark's Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen (l.) and Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen welcome US House of Representatives members Sarah McBride and Gregory Meeks (r.) in Copenhagen. (January 16, 2026)
Image: Keystone/Ida Marie Odgaard/Ritzau Scanpix via AP
Danish soldiers in front of the Joint Arctic Command Center in Nuuk. ( January 16, 2026)
Image: Keystone/AP Photo/Evgeniy Maloletka
Danish soldiers take part in a military exercise of several NATO member states in Greenland. (September 17, 2025)
Image: Keystone/AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi
US President Donald Trump (r.) with Jeff Landry, the governor of Louisiana, whom he appointed as US special envoy to Greenland in December 2025. (archive image)
Image: Keystone/EPA/Samuel Corum
According to President Trump, the USA needs Greenland for national security.
Image: Keystone
In Greenland, US President Trump's claims to ownership are met with rejection.
Image: Keystone/AP/Christian Klindt Soelbeck/Ritzau Scanpix Foto
The USA wants to take control of the world's largest island.
Image: Keystone/AP/Evgeniy Maloletka
Exhausted faces: Denmark's Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen (l.) and his Greenlandic counterpart Vivian Motzfeldt after the meeting with JD Vance and Marco Rubio in Washington on January 14, 2026.
Image: Keystone/EPA/Shawn Thew
Denmark's Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen (l.) and Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen welcome US House of Representatives members Sarah McBride and Gregory Meeks (r.) in Copenhagen. (January 16, 2026)
Image: Keystone/Ida Marie Odgaard/Ritzau Scanpix via AP
Danish soldiers in front of the Joint Arctic Command Center in Nuuk. ( January 16, 2026)
Image: Keystone/AP Photo/Evgeniy Maloletka
Danish soldiers take part in a military exercise of several NATO member states in Greenland. (September 17, 2025)
Image: Keystone/AP Photo/Ebrahim Noroozi
US President Donald Trump (r.) with Jeff Landry, the governor of Louisiana, whom he appointed as US special envoy to Greenland in December 2025. (archive image)
Image: Keystone/EPA/Samuel Corum
According to President Trump, the USA needs Greenland for national security.
Image: Keystone
Donald Trump wants to take over Greenland, militarily if necessary. Here, prominent US political scientist Steve Lamy explains why the US president will not deviate from his great power vision and what this could mean for transatlantic relations.
No time? blue News summarizes for you
- US President Donald Trump lays claim to Greenland.
- The White House has long been working to take control of the North Atlantic island, using military force if necessary.
- Arctic expert Steve Lamy, Professor of Political Science at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, explains in an interview with blue News why Trump will not deviate from his vision of great power and what the conflict could mean for transatlantic relations.
Mr. Lamy, Donald Trump has been threatening to reach for Greenland since his first term in office. Why does the USA need the world's largest island? Or perhaps it would be more accurate to ask: why does the US president want it?
As is well known, the Trump administration has put forward two arguments in favor of taking over Greenland. The first - and in my opinion the primary one - is an economic one. Trump wants to gain control of rare earths or rare earth metals such as lithium and titanium, which are crucial for the manufacture of smartphones, chips, electric cars and other technologies. The USA is far behind China in this area. Trump wants to prevent China's "Polar Silk Road" and access to these minerals. So it's primarily about China. But the interests of tech billionaires who are looking for new locations for their power-hungry AI data centers are also being used as an argument.
About the person
Steve Lamy is a US political scientist specializing in international relations and foreign policy, a long-time professor and academic director at the University of Southern California (USC) in Los Angeles. Lamy's current research focuses on the foreign and security policies of NATO's European member states. He has also presented several academic papers on Arctic governance and security issues.
The second argument for Trump's annexation threats is the US national security interest.
Exactly. He presents Greenland as essential to national security. The North Atlantic island is in a crucial geostrategic location. It is in close proximity to the USA and Canada and is part of the GIUK gap...
...a strategic maritime corridor for shipping and the transfer of submarines and warships between Greenland, Iceland and the northern end of the United Kingdom (UK).
As the Arctic ice melts, the region will become increasingly open to shipping, including Chinese and Russian warships, icebreakers and submarines. However, Trump's claims about Chinese and Russian military forces off the coast of Greenland are grossly exaggerated. If he is really concerned about provocations by the Russians and Chinese, he should turn his attention to two other regions.
Which ones?
Firstly, in the Barents Sea, where Russia is operating off the Scandinavian coast. The Russians are also vigorously rearming on the Kola Peninsula and modernizing infrastructure from the Cold War. On the other hand, both Russia and China are present in the Bering Sea south of Alaska. They regularly conduct joint military maneuvers and patrols there. And we do exactly nothing about it.
How much does the fuss about Greenland have to do with Trump's ego?
Quite a lot, in my opinion. He wants to leave what he sees as a very positive legacy of America's expansion. He is living in the late 19th century in relation to the US presidents he admires. This can also be seen in his tariff policy and very clearly in relation to spheres of influence. He has said several times since the attack on Venezuela that he will not allow any outside power to dominate any part of the Western Hemisphere. And the western hemisphere includes Greenland. I'm just hypothesizing here, but his approach is transactional and unilateral and he is very concerned with how he will go down in history.
What does Trump's "transactional" approach look like?
The focus is on the self-interest of states or those at the head of state who combine political interests with their own economic interests. In this case, Trump, his family and his business cronies, including the tech bros - many of whom now sit in his administration. His transactional approach was evident in the raw materials agreement with Ukraine last year.
And how does Trump want to go down in history?
As a powerful statesman who used the military strength of the USA - and the threat of this military strength - to increase the power and prestige of the USA. For him, power and prestige meant the expansion of the United States and that we control the world as unilateralists. This, of course, contrasts somewhat with his desire to go down in history as a "peace president".
In view of the mixed situation, can we assume that Trump will refrain from taking over or occupying Greenland or that he will agree to a deal with the island and Denmark?
In my opinion, there will either be an economic takeover or a military occupation. The US will not back down. Trump can't back down now. He has to get something out of it. Anything else would be a defeat in his eyes.
Couldn't he "just" get a raw materials deal?
It is conceivable that he could offer the Greenlandic and Danish governments a deal. A kind of blackmail: "I'll stop the threats if you give me exclusive rights to the use of raw materials ". He could then say to his supporters: "Look what I have achieved with my power and influence - without military intervention. He also needs the symbolism of victory for his base.
Would other countries and non-American companies still have access to Greenland's resources in the event of an exclusive raw materials deal?
No. US companies would be the only ones able to mine raw materials in Greenland. No matter how inefficient and unprofitable resource extraction is there due to the extreme climatic conditions. Although over 100 mining projects have been submitted to the Greenland government, only two mines are in operation. But that's another discussion. No European, no Australian, no Canadian and certainly no Chinese companies would have access. Not even in cooperation with an Australian company, for example. The USA would control everything. Greenland would therefore be an American economic colony. Denmark would have to agree and Trump would not have to pay a cent.
What would such an outcome mean for political Greenland?
Greenland would then basically be a "hollow colony" in terms of its political self-determination. The USA would do everything in its power to change the political framework so that the governing parties could accept the USA's advances. And they would slowly replace the government.
Allies, observers and experts say that an attack on Greenland would mean the end of Nato. How great is the risk? And would the deal you outlined ensure the continued existence of the alliance?
If Trump uses military force, it will be the end of Nato. If an economic agreement is agreed and presented as such - then it would be achieved under duress. So: gun to the chest and a choice between signing or military takeover.
And even such a deal could not survive Nato in your view?
No. Regardless of whether you let Trump take over Greenland or not, even if he gives in to a certain extent - the alliance is badly damaged and can hardly be saved. Since Trump's return almost a year ago, America is not the only country that has changed. There is his blind destruction of rules-based systems, global and regional institutions and the rule of law. He is trying to dismantle any idea of multilateralism and security alliances. He despises the liberal global economic order, the liberal state order and NATO. With the dispute over Greenland, he can bring about the end of NATO - and he is willing to do so. Unlike the Europeans and many Americans, Trump does not see Russia as a threat to Europe. A Nato alliance cannot be maintained in this way. Putin is one of the winners here. Trump is doing what Putin wants - he is dismantling Nato.
What does that mean for the NATO member states and for Europe?
They need to think about how to adapt to this new world. The Europeans need to arm themselves even more vigorously and strengthen their arms industry. It has long been obvious that they can no longer rely on the USA. The global community rightly no longer trusts the USA. We have squandered that trust.
Is rearming enough?
A new Western security organization would probably also be necessary - without the USA. An alliance between Europe, the UK and countries such as Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan, which has an Article 5 similar to NATO. Because no one in their right mind would hope for help from the USA if, for example, North Korea were to attack South Korea or China Taiwan or Japan.
A bipartisan delegation from the US Congress traveled to Copenhagen at the end of the week to meet with Danish and Greenlandic government representatives. What can Congress do?
It is useless and powerless. Trump ignores it anyway and would take any attempted curtailment of his military powers to court. That would be a small threshold for him. He's acting pretty quickly now because he and his people are intoxicated by the military action in Caracas. If he can take a country like Venezuela without losses, it takes him just an afternoon to annex Greenland, which is around twice the size and sparsely populated.
But even a few Republican senators have expressed reservations.
They will certainly stick to their guns because Trump will threaten to support opposing candidates in the next primary.
Who do you think is formulating the US government's Greenland strategy?
It's mainly Trump and probably to a large extent Stephen Miller, although he's mainly visible on domestic policy. Everyone, including Secretary of State Rubio, Vice President JD Vance and the other people in Trump's circle are yes-men, no one is standing up to him. Not a trace of Arctic experts either. As the renowned political scientist John Mearsheimer says: "We have become a rogue state." I can only repeat that. And Trump is proud of it. The days when we criticized pariah states are over. We have become one ourselves.
In connection with the Greenland dispute, you speak of "coercive diplomacy". How is Trump using it?
Coercive diplomacy is the credible threat of the use of military force. Trump uses it by issuing an ultimatum in the hope that Greenland or Denmark will comply. If not, the screw will be gradually tightened.
How has he tightened the screw so far?
Even before he started his second term, he sent his son Don Jr. to Nuuk. That was a tightening of the screw. In March, he sent Vance and his wife to Greenland to visit the Pituffik Space Base - and the vice president voiced harsh criticism of Denmark there. Another tightening. Just two weeks after the visit, the head of the base was dismissed for allegedly distancing herself from statements made by the US government in an e-mail. For the time being, the strategy culminates in the latest maneuver: he threatens Greenland's friends with tariffs.
How does Trump's appointment of the governor of Louisiana, Jeff Landry, as special envoy for Greenland fit into this strategy?
This is clearly a further tightening of the screw. It signals that Landry is to turn Greenland into a US state. This arch-conservative southern politician has no idea about the Arctic or about this island, four-fifths of which is covered in ice, but he is a big Trump loyalist and he knows about the day-to-day business of a federal state. The idea is probably that he is the governor of a US state and that Greenland could become the 51st state of the USA.
