Will the US take control of any part of Greenland?

Influential think tanks prioritize U.S. engagement and partnerships over outright acquisition of Greenland. Policy proposals from influential think tanks concerning Greenland, particularly those relevant to a potential second Trump term, primarily advocate for enhanced U.S. engagement, investment, and strategic partnerships rather than direct purchase. Key recommendations include the America First Policy Institute's "Trump Condominium for Greenland" and the Heritage Foundation's call for the U.S. to assume a leading role in Greenland's development and security to counteract adversarial influence ^{[^]}. The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) has put forth a "Trump Condominium for Greenland" concept, which envisions a tripartite arrangement involving the United States, Denmark, and Greenland. This proposed policy entails the U.S. providing significant investment and security guarantees, while sharing benefits from resource development. The primary objectives are to secure U.S. strategic interests, bolster Greenland's economy, and shield the territory from opposing influences ^{[^]}. Robert C. O'Brien, an author of the AFPI piece, has advocated for such approaches, although the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 does not contain a specific mandate on Greenland ^{[^]}.

Heritage emphasizes U.S. leadership to counter rival influence in Greenland. The Heritage Foundation underscores Greenland's vital importance to U.S. national security, urging the U.S. to "take the lead" in the region to preempt growing influence from rivals such as China and Russia ^{[^]}. Heritage's policy recommendations encompass robust diplomatic engagement, support for economic development, and military cooperation with Greenland and Denmark. Specific suggestions include increasing U.S. investment in Greenland's economy, improving infrastructure, and potentially exploring "special economic zone status" to present a compelling alternative to Chinese investment. While acknowledging Greenland's strategic value, Heritage also recognizes the complexities of direct acquisition, generally favoring strengthened partnerships and influence over an outright purchase ^{[^]}.

Greenland's political parties firmly reject any notion of U.S. sovereignty over its territory. Leading parties, including Siumut and Inuit Ataqatigiit, maintain a unified and steadfast position against any potential U.S. acquisition of Greenlandic land, emphasizing the country's unwavering sovereignty and right to self-determination. In 2026, a joint statement from all major parliamentary parties explicitly rejected any proposition for the United States to gain sovereignty over any part of Greenland ^{[^]}. Greenland's Premier, Mute B. Egede, reinforced this position by declaring Greenland "not for sale" following renewed U.S. interest ^{[^]}. Inuit Ataqatigiit, a party fundamentally aiming for an independent Greenland, inherently opposes foreign sovereignty over its land ^{[^]}.

Moreover, Greenland's parties oppose expanding U.S. military base rights without explicit consent and substantial benefits. While resolute in their rejection of U.S. sovereignty, Greenlandic politicians have expressed a desire for a more substantial and equitable defense relationship with the United States. In May 2025, Greenland's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Pele Broberg, articulated Greenland's wish for a more robust and comprehensive defense agreement with the U.S. ^{[^]}. He advocated for Greenland to be recognized as an "equal partner in a trilateral relationship" alongside Denmark and the U.S., specifically concerning the Thule Air Base ^{[^]}. This stance underscores a commitment to mutual respect and equality, seeking greater influence and benefits within existing defense frameworks rather than ceding control or sovereignty. The prevailing political sentiment in Greenland prioritizes the defense of its self-determination and sovereignty in the evolving Arctic landscape ^{[^]}.

The Kvanefjeld rare-earth project is currently blocked due to significant environmental concerns. Legislation passed by the Greenlandic parliament in November 2021 effectively halted the Kvanefjeld project, associated with Energy Transition Minerals. This decision was driven by substantial public opposition and environmental concerns, particularly regarding the project's uranium content and potential impact on a UNESCO World Heritage site ^{[^]}. The provided research does not contain specific information regarding the Kringlerne project's current status or ownership structure.

The Tanbreez rare-earth project saw a recent change in its majority ownership. Critical Metals Corp. finalized its acquisition of a 92.5% stake in the Tanbreez project, recognized as one of Greenland's most advanced rare-earth initiatives ^{[^]}. This acquisition was completed after the Greenland government approved the transfer of the final 50.5% in April 2026, bringing Critical Metals Corp. to its majority ownership ^{[^]}.

Greenland implemented a foreign investment screening act for national security, effective January 1, 2023. This Act is designed to screen investments that may pose a threat to national security or public order ^{[^]}. It specifically applies to investments in critical infrastructure, critical technology, and sensitive sectors, including rare earths and other critical raw materials ^{[^]}. While Greenland manages the screening process, the Danish Business Authority acts as the secretariat for the screening authority, reflecting the joint responsibility in areas of national security and foreign policy between Greenland and Denmark ^{[^]}.

The 1951 U.S.-Danish treaty upholds Danish sovereignty over Greenland. Formally titled "Defense of Greenland: Agreement Between the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark," this treaty explicitly reaffirms Danish sovereignty as its foundational principle, focusing on defense cooperation within the North Atlantic Treaty framework ^{[^]}. It grants the United States rights to establish, maintain, and operate specific "defense areas and facilities" in Greenland, including airfields, naval bases, and radar stations, and to station necessary personnel and equipment ^{[^]}. These provisions provide the U.S. with operational rights for military purposes on Danish sovereign territory; however, they do not transfer or establish U.S. sovereignty or exclusive territorial control over any part of Greenland ^{[^]}.

Treaty clauses offer no precedent for U.S. territorial acquisition in Greenland. While the agreement allows for adjustments and termination, its existing clauses do not provide legal mechanisms for the U.S. to acquire exclusive, long-term control over new territory from Denmark through amendment or renegotiation of this specific treaty ^{[^]}. Article II permits "adjustments," but these are strictly understood within the framework of existing defense cooperation and the explicit affirmation of Danish sovereignty, not as a means for territorial cession ^{[^]}. Similarly, Article V allows either government to terminate the agreement upon two years' notice, facilitating a new agreement or withdrawal, but it does not enable territorial transfer ^{[^]}. Any move by the U.S. to acquire sovereign territory would fundamentally alter the treaty's nature, necessitating a distinct, new international agreement beyond the scope and spirit of the 1951 defense pact ^{[^]}.

Greenland and Denmark have upcoming general elections scheduled for 2025 and 2026, respectively. Greenland's next general election for its unicameral parliament, the Inatsisartut, is set for late 2025 ^{[^]}. This election adheres to its standard four-year cycle, with the previous one held in 2021 ^{[^]}. For Denmark, the general election for the Folketing (parliament) is anticipated in 2026 ^{[^]}.

Danish political figures uphold strong sovereignty in response to U.S. Arctic pressure. Historically, Danish leaders have maintained a firm stance on their sovereignty, particularly concerning Greenland, when faced with U.S. pressure on Arctic security matters. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen notably addressed former U.S. President Donald Trump's proposition to purchase Greenland by asserting, "You cannot annex another country" ^{[^]}. She further underscored that Danish sovereignty over Greenland is "paramount," labeling any discussions about its acquisition as both "an absurd discussion" and "an insult" to Greenland and Denmark ^{[^]}. Although this led to Trump canceling a planned state visit to Denmark, Prime Minister Frederiksen expressed regret for the cancellation while unequivocally maintaining her position on Greenland's political status ^{[^]}. The Danish Foreign Minister also engaged with U.S. officials, during which a strong relationship between the two countries was emphasized ^{[^]}.

Catalyst analysis unavailable.