President Donald Trump said the United States should control Greenland during the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, on July 7, 2026 [1].
The proposal challenges the current sovereignty of the Danish autonomous territory and signals a shift in how the U.S. views Arctic territorial control. Because Greenland holds strategic value in the North Atlantic, any move toward U.S. acquisition could strain relations between Washington, Copenhagen, and other NATO allies.
Trump said that Greenland is very important to the United States and should be controlled by the United States, not by Denmark [2]. He said that the territory is strategically vital for U.S. security against Russia and China [3].
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte did not endorse a transfer of sovereignty. Rutte said that NATO would work to implement security arrangements step by step [2]. He said a generic statement regarding Arctic security rather than addressing the specific request for territorial control [4].
The president's focus on the region is not a new development. Jeff Landry said that Trump told him the United States needs to get Greenland [5]. The remarks in Ankara emphasize a recurring priority for the administration to secure a permanent foothold in the Arctic to counter the influence of adversarial powers.
This interaction occurred amidst a broader summit in Ankara where leaders discussed the future of the alliance and regional stability [1]. While the U.S. maintains a significant military presence in the region, the proposal for direct control remains a point of contention among European partners.
“"Greenland is very important to the United States and should be controlled by the United States, not by Denmark."”
This proposal underscores a transactional approach to geopolitics, prioritizing direct territorial control over traditional diplomatic alliances. By framing Greenland as a necessity for security against Russia and China, the U.S. is signaling that it may view the current administrative status of Arctic territories as an obstacle to national defense. The non-committal response from NATO leadership suggests a desire to maintain alliance cohesion while avoiding a diplomatic crisis with Denmark.
