President Donald Trump is right when he identified the Arctic region as a strategic priority for the U.S.
He is right when he points out that China, Russia, and possibly other U.S. adversaries are already active in the region and can threaten U.S. national security.
And he is right when he says that not enough has been done to guarantee American presence and security in the Arctic, and in Greenland in particular.
But he is misguided when he blames Denmark or Greenland for this situation, and off base when he asserts that the U.S. needs to "own" Greenland to address the problem.
He could and should be lashing out at past U.S. administrations for missing the opportunity, and now is the time for him to score a win while keeping NATO allies like Denmark and others strongly supportive of any result.
Little known is the fact that a 1951 treaty with Denmark — which was amended as recently as 2004 — provides all the legal basis the U.S. needs to do whatever is necessary militarily to provide security for and from Greenland.
While past U.S. administrations walked away from using Greenland for its security opportunities, Trump grasps its importance.
For much of the Cold War, the U.S. had multiple military installations and as many as 6,000 forces there.
Prior U.S. administrations — not Denmark — deprioritized Greenland, withdrew U.S. forces, closed bases, and ignored American security in the Arctic.
The U.S. now has one base and approximately 150 personnel in Greenland — vastly underresourced because of America's own decisions and actions.
Denmark watched as America withdrew.
Denmark has maintained some installations the U.S. abandoned and can make any future arrangements needed to accommodate an increase in American forces.
It has increased its own spending and presence in the Arctic, partly because of its own security needs, and partly because of U.S. withdrawals. And Copenhagen is prepared to do more, but even Denmark knows it cannot substitute for U.S. capabilities.
If the Trump administration is serious about U.S. national security in the Arctic, it would develop a robust military plan for securing the Arctic to include a larger American military footprint, space, radar and observation stations, missile defense installations, anti-submarine capabilities, icebreakers, naval bases, and patrols.
It would present Denmark with a list of "host-nation support" requirements.
With a positive framework, the Trump administration could go to Congress and seek funding to significantly expand America's military weight in the high North.
Instead, Trump himself has said that the need to take over Greenland is largely "psychological."
His vast real estate experience tells him the importance of investing in something owned, not something leased.
That real estate perspective, unfortunately, will not solve many problems that result if the U.S. simply attempts to "take" Greenland.
Trump can achieve his goals of strengthening Greenland's and America's security, as well as opening up business and mineral opportunities there, and still keep us on a positive footing with our allies.
"Owning" Greenland is not without problems. For example, it would make the U.S. responsible for a local population that has nothing to do with American culture, politics, and institutions, and is acclimatized to a generous Danish welfare state, not America's bare-bones welfare system.
Moreover, seizing the territory of a fellow NATO ally would destroy NATO, which remains of vital strategic importance to the U.S.
The entire premise of NATO is that all member nations fight together to defend the territory of any ally that is under attack. The alliance has created the largest expanse of free, law-abiding, prosperous territory on earth, all of which is allied with the U.S.
If the U.S. were now to become the party threatening the territory of a fellow ally, the alliance would come apart.
Surely Trump sees the vast loss of American power and influence this would entail.
Trump's dream of accessing Greenland's vast mineral wealth can also be realized without the downsides of seeking to take over the island. Greenlanders are eager for investment and will provide favorable terms.
The issue preventing major investment in Greenland has never been political; it has been the massive icepack that sits over most of the island.
When U.S. businesses believe that developments in technology or the climate have made investment in Greenland worthwhile, they will be there in a heartbeat.
And Greenlanders will be there to welcome them with open arms.
In the case of Trump's claim that the U.S. simply needs to "own" Greenland, the answer is not to do so as a political matter, but to effectively do so by becoming the key security and business force in the territory.
Trump is right: Let's take care of American security and let's gain access to billions of dollars' worth of natural resources. But let's do it without the unnecessary wounds a takeover of the island would entail for us internationally.
Kurt Volker is a former U.S. ambassador to NATO (2008-09) and former U.S. special representative for Ukraine negotiations (2017-19). He is a distinguished fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis.
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.