Why is Trump going after Greenland?

1. National security as the public rationale

The White House and President Trump have repeatedly said Greenland is vital to U.S. national security, arguing the island offers strategic geography for air defenses, missile interceptors and control of Arctic approaches — claims echoed by administration allies who invoke a “Golden Dome” missile-defense concept and the island’s role on the Greenland–Iceland–UK (GIUK) gap for tracking Russian submarines ^{[1] [3] [5]}.

2. A contest with China and Russia in the Arctic

Trump frames the need to “own” Greenland largely as preemption: if the United States does not control the island, rival powers will, and that would threaten U.S. interests, a narrative repeated across his social posts and press remarks and used to justify hard bargaining and even threats of force ^{[6] [7] [2]}.

3. Minerals, rare earths and supply-chain leverage

Beyond strategic geography, analysts and administration figures point to Greenland’s significant deposits of rare-earth and other critical minerals that the U.S. and EU view as important for reducing dependence on Chinese supply chains; commentators and officials explicitly frame resource access as a motive and policy objective ^{[4] [8] [9]}.

4. Economic and political interests behind the scenes

Reporting shows that influential investors and donors have developed commercial stakes in Greenland and that private advice to the president has intersected with investment interests, suggesting economic opportunity and patronage may be entangled with official motives — a pattern described in investigative pieces noting billionaire investors and past private proposals to the White House ^{[10] [11] [9]}.

5. Coercive tactics and the diplomatic fallout

The administration has not limited itself to diplomacy: recent moves include threats of military action, public declarations that leases are inadequate, and imposition of tariffs on European countries supporting Denmark’s stance — measures that have inflamed allies, prompted NATO concern, and led Denmark and Greenlandic officials to reject the idea that the territory is for sale ^{[2] [12] [13]}.

6. Legal and practical constraints — and what reporting leaves open

Existing agreements give the U.S. substantial military access to Greenland, but sovereignty transfers would confront Danish constitutional law, Greenland’s self-rule, NATO norms, and international law; while press accounts show the administration is exploring “a range of options,” reporting also makes clear that outright acquisition faces steep legal and political obstacles and that experts question whether sovereignty is necessary to secure strategic or resource goals ^{[2] [8] [9]}.

7. Motive synthesis: layered incentives, divergent audiences

Putting the strands together, Trump’s campaign for Greenland serves multiple, sometimes overlapping purposes: a national-security narrative that rallies voters and justifies expanded basing, an economic strategy to gain preferential access to minerals crucial for industry, and political signaling to donors and domestic constituencies — all delivered with transactional tactics that risk rupturing alliances ^{[1] [4] [10] [13]}.

8. Open questions and credibility limits in reporting

Available reporting documents claims from the administration, expert skepticism, and evidence of private investments, but it does not fully disclose internal deliberations proving which motive dominates decision-making nor does it resolve whether resource access could be secured without changing sovereignty — gaps that leave room for competing interpretations grounded in geopolitics, economics and personal influence ^{[9] [4] [11]}.