The US purchase of Alaska in 1867 established its status as an Arctic power. In the century that followed, Greenland emerged as a complementary strategic point for consolidating influence in the circumpolar region and controlling approaches to North America, Sellita writes.
In 2019, President Donald Trump publicly proposed purchasing Greenland. While the idea attracted significant public attention, it was largely ridiculed as an unrealistic plan. Both the Greenlandic and Danish administrations claimed that the territory was not for sale, and was in control of its own path. In contrast, Trump insisted that the United States must “do something” regarding Greenland, effectively viewing the prospect of the United States purchasing Greenland from Denmark as a territorial transaction, likening it to a real estate deal. In January 2025, Donald Trump reiterated this earlier interest in acquiring Greenland, reintroducing the territorial issue into contemporary geopolitical discourse.
By the second phase of his political leadership, the proposition had become more assertive and expansive. Trump has increasingly framed Greenland not merely as a desirable territory, but as a strategic necessity for US national security, particularly within the context of intensifying global competition with Russia and China. Control over Greenland has been framed as crucial to preserving wider geopolitical influence and defending American interests.
The strategic significance of Greenland had already been recognised by the United States when President Truman offered to purchase the island from Denmark. However, the offer that was ultimately declined, and led to the 1951 Defense Agreement between Washington and Copenhagen, which established US-Danish security cooperation and gave the United States a permanent strategic presence in Greenland.
The United States’ policy rhetoric in Greenland has articulated two major mechanisms for pursuing influence or control: a coercive paradigm, presented in military and security terms, and a transactional modality, framed as a negotiated transfer. In this discourse, Greenland is positioned as a strategic priority for US national security, especially in relation to perceived threats from other major countries in the Arctic. The other option is acquisition through diplomatic and economic negotiation with Denmark.
From a classical geopolitical perspective, control over Greenland can be seen as aligning with Mackinder’s emphasis on strategic geographical pivots, sea power by Alfred Mahan, and Spykman’s Rimland theory, which highlights the importance of sea and peripheral (coastal) regions in shaping global power balances.
Greenland is positioned as a key geographic “heartland” that allows the country to influence the broader global power structure. Despite Greenland’s location outside the Eurasian heartland, its strategic location at the crossroads of the North Atlantic and the Arctic makes it a key link in global trade routes between North America, Europe, and the Arctic. From Mackinder’s perspective, Greenland, as a US military-strategic objective, functions as a global pivot, facilitating power projection, surveillance, and access control along maritime and air corridors. Therefore, for Trump, national interests must be aligned with the deployment of the Golden Dome missile defence base. This relates to the goal of monitoring Russian military activity in the Arctic and North Atlantic and preventing China from gaining a strategic foothold in Arctic infrastructure, mining, and research.
From a maritime perspective, Alfred Mahan’s concept of sea power underscores Greenland’s importance in securing vital sea lanes and projecting influence throughout the Arctic and North Atlantic. The relevance of sea power reflects the US’s rational pursuit of dominance in the northern region. Trump sees this as a strategic necessity to reassert American primacy (MAGA) by demonstrating that the United States remains capable of territorial expansion and setting the agenda in world politics. However, this concept enhances Trump’s nationalist political narrative by projecting an image of American power and assertiveness.
Spykman’s Rimland theory further reinforces Greenland’s significance by shifting the analytical focus from the Heartland to the peripheral zones surrounding the mainland (coastal) zone. From this perspective, Greenland’s control or influence over these peripheral spaces allows maritime powers to contain rival states, secure trade routes, and prevent hostile encirclement, including by establishing US military bases on the coast.
