Trump and Greenland: An Approach That Tested International Norms

President Donald Trump’s renewed push for Greenland has rattled Europe, raising alarms about how far he’s willing to go to assert U.S. power over allies. Trump has always had a long standing interest in claiming Greenland, arguing that it's a strategic and vital need for U.S. national security (missile defense), Arctic Dominance, and competition with Russia and China. The president has been adamant in refusing to rule out military force to secure Greenland, alarming not only U.S. allies, but enemies as well. One of his most alarming threats are the 10% tariffs he plans on imposing on seven European countries, including Denmark and NATO allies, as leverage to reach his objectives, marking a shift from traditional alliance-based diplomacy toward open coercion.

There had already been brewing tension between Trump and Europe, and him not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize last year resulted in him having a personal grievance against Norway’s government, even though the Norwegian government does not decide who is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Norwegian leaders retaliated by releasing messages the president had sent expressing his disappointment over such “betrayal” to the public under Norway's public disclosure laws. Consequently, Trump later implied that he would not tolerate such disrespect and would stop following diplomatic behavior if he felt personally insulted. “Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.” said Trump in the message.

Government leaders from Denmark, Greenland, and several other European countries firmly rejected any suggestions that Greenland could be taken or negotiated away. Trump even received backlash from his NATO allies who warned him against threats and raised questions about alliances and unity. As a result, the president publicly stated that he would not use military force to obtain Greenland and tariff threats were momentarily postponed, leaving uncertainty about his true intentions. Although the president ruled out using immediate force, he did not abandon his goal of recruiting Greenland to be part of the U.S. Details about any kind of diplomatic framework have been unreleased, raising concerns about whether tensions were truly resolved or merely delayed. 

In conclusion, President Donald Trump’s renewed focus on Greenland highlights a pattern of aggressive, unconventional foreign policy that blends strategic objectives with personal grievances. While he publicly withdrew from imposing direct military action and tariffs, his goal of claiming Greenland remains, leaving tension between him and European leaders and allies.