The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, commonly referred to as NATO, was established as a military alliance after World War II in 1949. NATO has provided collective security and military aid for decades. However, the long-established alliance is facing recent threats on many fronts, including from the current United States President, Donald Trump.
Denmark is a part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, like the United States. Although Greenland lacks a military or membership in NATO, it is part of the alliance through Denmark, which owns the semi-autonomous territory.
Despite this, Trump has pushed to acquire Greenland, repeatedly demanding the territory after multiple rejections from Greenland and Denmark.
Brian Lai is a Political Science Professor at the University of Iowa, focusing on foreign policy.
“Buying a territory is not something that happens a lot today. It used to be a lot more prevalent, maybe 200 years ago,” Lai said. “No one has really floated the idea of buying territory since the Cold War, and I think that’s the shocking part about the whole idea, in addition to the fact that we are in alliance with the country that owns the territory.”
The Arctic has become a very strategic region in recent years, leading Trump to display his interest in the land.
“There are two big things that make the Arctic attractive. One is traditional, as Russia becomes more of a threat to Europe,” Lai said. “The second is the competition between the US, Russia and China as the Arctic is heating up. As the Earth warms, there is greater access to the Arctic itself, so Greenland, because of its location, is important for access to the Arctic and defense.”
Trump claims the reason for his interest is due to the “threat” Russia poses to Greenland and claims that only the U.S. could properly protect and improve it. However, there are speculations about resources playing a crucial role in his decision.
Conrad Nichols is a social studies teacher at Liberty High School who focuses on United States History.
“The United States Military already has a big reach around the world, and we already have bases in Greenland,” Nichols said. “President Trump has claimed the reason behind the inquiry is that owning the land would lead to motivation for the U.S. to defend it, but people are saying that the defense is what NATO provides. There have also been some comments about [Greenland’s] natural resources, but the controversy over whether we should pursue natural resources persists. Maybe we shouldn’t go and extract all our natural resources, and instead preserve our world.”
Not only does the acquisition of Greenland affect NATO and its future, but Trump’s reactions to opposition do as well.
“The inquiry itself isn’t threatening, but attempts to pressure for sale could definitely cause a strain. And so the fact it would now threaten those states, I think, for many of them would have raised concerns about how committed the U.S. is to collective defense,” Lai said.
President Trump’s inquiry also influences how countries perceive the United States’ diplomacy.
“I think it has a reputational impact on how we do our diplomacy,” Nichols said.
Trump had threatened new tariffs for the countries, U.S. allies, that did not approve of his pursuit of Greenland against Greenland’s will. Additionally, Trump claims that the U.S. should have rights to the country as a result of protecting the island during World War II, stating, “We already had it, but we returned it to Denmark; we should have kept it.”
Trump claims that his attempted takeover and threat to impose tariffs will not threaten NATO. And despite Article 5 of the alliance claiming that an attack on one member country is an attack on them all, he has not ruled out military force.
“Trump’s administration made some threats before a recent big meeting they had. They had previously said they might be open to using force, so they have applied some pressure, and it did raise some concerns, which is why they had a big meeting about it,” Lai said.
However, Trump has withdrawn the tariff threat as a result of a meeting with NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, claiming they had agreed to “the framework for a future deal.”
If the pursuit continues, especially with military force, there is a serious threat to the alliance. A question arising in many people’s minds is what would happen if NATO disbanded.
“There are two things I think would occur if NATO disbanded. One is that we might go back to the way foreign policy acted previously to World War II, where all the states were in it for themselves. I also think the U.S. would invest more in its military, and you would have the U.S., EU, China and Russia as the four major powers competing with each other,” Lai said “The second thing is NATO has provided a lot of other benefits like providing a form in which the U.S. and European states can work through other issues, which would be lost.”
Additionally, the purchase of Greenland could also pose controversies within the U.S.
“I think the buying of Greenland would split the country, and as a result, we would see a stronger anti-imperalist push,” Nichols said. “With everything else that’s happening in our country, I don’t think we need another thing to throw on top of the fire.”
Negotiations continue between President Trump, Greenland and Denmark in the following weeks regarding the future of Greenland, with no affirmed agreements yet. U.S. officials comment that there is discussion about the U.S. adding more bases in Greenland and gaining access to Greenland’s natural resources.
Rutte has claimed they will “come together in NATO with our senior commanders to work out what is necessary. I have no doubt we can do this quite fast. Certainly, I would hope for 2026, I hope even early in 2026.”
“I don’t believe the U.S. would invade Greenland with force, and I think the U.S. can easily accomplish what it wants through the existing framework. My hope is that most of this has diffused now with the recent meeting and through the agreements with Denmark,” Lai said. “The question is, what is the difference between owning a territory and just doing what you want but not owning it? The latter is what we currently have, as we can invest economically and put troops there.”
The possible outcome of the situation is unknown, as it’s constantly evolving. Therefore, the future of Greenland and NATO lies with the ongoing negotiations.
“[It’s important] to approach this stuff with curiosity and an open mind, while keeping the weight of history in mind, before everybody throws out their thoughts,” Nichols said.
