MWE Correspondent
In a development drawing global attention and diplomatic concern, the White House has confirmed that the United States is actively considering a range of options to gain control of Greenland, including in theory the potential use of military force.
This stance, described by senior officials as part of a broader strategic review, has triggered swift and firm pushback from allies and raised questions about international norms and security cooperation.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told the press that President Donald Trump regards Greenland as “a national security priority” for the United States, particularly in light of intensifying geopolitical competition in the Arctic region. She said Washington’s leaders are examining various paths — diplomatic, economic and otherwise — though she reiterated that any military option remains only one part of an extensive set of considerations.
Officials in Washington framed the renewed focus on Greenland as a response to growing global dynamics, including the strategic ambitions of other powers such as Russia and China in the far north, and the importance of securing critical infrastructure and defense capabilities in a changing climate landscape.
However, the announcement has sparked immediate concern among several U.S. allies. Leaders from Denmark — the sovereign state responsible for Greenland’s defense and foreign policy — along with other European capitals, issued joint statements condemning any suggestion of coercive measures. They stressed that Greenland belongs to its people and that its future should be determined without external pressure.
Also Read; Protests Escalate Across Iran Amid Economic Crisis
Denmark’s prime minister reiterated that any military action against a NATO partner would have far‑reaching consequences for the alliance, undermining decades of shared security commitments. Danish and Greenlandic officials have both insisted that the island is not for sale and have sought urgent diplomatic engagement with U.S. counterparts to clarify Washington’s intentions.
Greenland — with a population of roughly 57,000 people, largely of Inuit heritage — enjoys self‑government in internal affairs while Denmark retains authority over defense and foreign affairs. Its vast, resource‑rich terrain and strategic location at the gateway between North America and Europe have long made it a point of interest for global powers.
While top U.S. officials have publicly stated that negotiations or even a peaceful purchase remain preferred routes, their language underscoring that military action is “always an option” has unsettled policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic. Critics argue that even raising such a possibility against a friendly nation sets a dangerous precedent, potentially weakening international trust and alliance cohesion.
Global observers note that, beyond strategic military considerations, Greenland’s abundant natural resources — including rare minerals and emerging maritime routes as Arctic ice recedes — further complicate the geopolitical calculus. Regardless of Washington’s internal debate, the unfolding situation has reignited a broader conversation about sovereignty, alliance obligations, and the evolving security environment in the Arctic.
