President Donald Trump said Tuesday that the United States should control Greenland rather than Denmark [1].
The comments signal a potential shift in U.S. foreign policy and a challenge to the territorial sovereignty of a NATO ally. By linking territorial ambitions with the presence of U.S. military forces in Europe, the president is leveraging strategic assets to pressure allied nations.
Speaking during the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, on July 7, 2026 [1], Trump said the island is a vital component of U.S. strategic interests. He said the current administration of the territory is flawed, stating that Denmark does not spend enough money to help Greenland [2].
"Greenland should be controlled by the United States, not Denmark," Trump said [3].
The president further connected the issue of regional cooperation to the U.S. military footprint on the continent. He suggested that the U.S. might reconsider its commitments to European security if allies do not meet his expectations.
"We could remove troops from Europe," Trump said [4].
Trump said the acquisition of Greenland is a necessity for the U.S. while maintaining that Denmark's financial investment in the region is insufficient [2]. He said the island is an important part of the United States, despite it currently being an autonomous territory of Denmark [2].
The remarks come as NATO members meet in Turkey to discuss security and regional stability. The suggestion of a territorial takeover of a member state's territory is an unusual development for a summit intended to foster alliance cohesion. The president's comments on troop withdrawals add a layer of uncertainty to the security guarantees the U.S. provides to its European partners [3].
“"Greenland should be controlled by the United States, not Denmark."”
These statements represent a departure from traditional diplomatic norms within the NATO alliance. By suggesting the U.S. should annex territory from an ally and threatening the withdrawal of troops, the administration is utilizing transactional diplomacy to redefine strategic partnerships in the North Atlantic. This approach may strain relations with Denmark and create instability regarding the U.S. security umbrella in Europe.
