{"id":13783,"date":"2026-01-10T00:04:46","date_gmt":"2026-01-10T00:04:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/trump-greenland-denmark-military\/"},"modified":"2026-01-10T00:04:46","modified_gmt":"2026-01-10T00:04:46","slug":"trump-greenland-denmark-military","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/trump-greenland-denmark-military\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump: \u2018We are going to do something on Greenland whether they like it or not\u2019 &#8211; CNBC"},"content":{"rendered":"<article>\n<p><strong>Lead:<\/strong> On Jan. 9, 2026, at a White House meeting with oil-industry executives, President Donald Trump said his administration will act on Greenland &#8220;whether they like it or not,&#8221; signaling an intention to press the United States&#8217; interest in the Danish territory. The comment came amid wider U.S. moves in the hemisphere after the military operation in Venezuela less than a week earlier that captured Nicol\u00e1s Maduro. Trump framed the push in strategic terms, warning that Russia or China could otherwise expand influence in the Arctic. His remarks renewed a diplomatic dispute with Denmark and prompted questions about the legal and political routes Washington might pursue.<\/p>\n<h2>Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>President Trump said on Jan. 9, 2026, at the White House that the U.S. will &#8220;do something&#8221; on Greenland, repeating that action will proceed &#8220;whether they like it or not.&#8221;<\/li>\n<li>The remarks were made during a meeting with oil executives as the administration discussed business prospects in Venezuela following a U.S. military operation that captured Nicol\u00e1s Maduro less than a week earlier.<\/li>\n<li>The U.S. is reported to be weighing a range of options for Greenland, from purchase negotiations with Denmark to expanded military measures and possible direct payments to Greenland residents.<\/li>\n<li>Denmark and NATO partners have reiterated that &#8220;Greenland is not for sale,&#8221; underscoring the diplomatic friction between Washington and its European allies.<\/li>\n<li>The U.S. already maintains a military presence in Greenland, including Thule Air Base; the administration says ownership, rather than leases, is preferable for defense priorities.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Background<\/h2>\n<p>Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, has long attracted geopolitical attention because of its Arctic location, mineral resources and strategic value for early-warning systems and missile tracking. The island covers roughly 2.17 million square kilometers but has a small population (about 56,000), and Greenlandic authorities exercise significant domestic control while foreign affairs and defense remain Danish responsibilities.<\/p>\n<p>U.S. interest in Greenland is not new: strategic considerations date to World War II and the Cold War, and the United States maintains long-standing facilities such as Thule Air Base. In 2019, an earlier U.S. proposal to buy Greenland triggered diplomatic rebukes from Copenhagen; that episode remains a reference point for current tensions. NATO allies, including Denmark, emphasize alliance consultation and the legal framework governing territory transfers.<\/p>\n<h2>Main Event<\/h2>\n<p>At the Jan. 9 meeting, Trump linked the Greenland initiative to broader security concerns, asserting that the United States must act before other powers do. He said he preferred a negotiated, &#8220;easy way&#8221; to resolve matters but added that the administration was prepared to take harder measures if necessary. The president also referenced a historical claim, noting European landings centuries ago, and argued for U.S. prerogatives in the Arctic.<\/p>\n<p>When asked about reported plans to offer lump-sum payments to Greenlanders to encourage alignment with the United States, Trump replied, &#8220;I&#8217;m not talking about money for Greenland, yet,&#8221; while reiterating his earlier line that action would come &#8220;whether they like it or not.&#8221; He framed the choice as a competition with Russia and China for Arctic influence and said controlling territory would improve deterrence: &#8220;When we own it, we defend it. You don&#8217;t defend leases the same way, you have to own it.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Denmark and European NATO members publicly pushed back, restating the position that Greenland is not on the market. U.S. officials have described internal discussions on multiple options but have not released a formal policy paper or legal pathway for any transfer of sovereignty.<\/p>\n<h2>Analysis &#038; Implications<\/h2>\n<p>Politically, an aggressive U.S. pursuit of Greenland risks straining relations with a close NATO ally. Denmark retains constitutional control over Greenland&#8217;s foreign and defense affairs, and any transfer of territory would require complex negotiations and likely Greenlandic consent under current autonomy arrangements. Immediate unilateral action by Washington would face legal, diplomatic and reputational barriers.<\/p>\n<p>From a security perspective, the administration&#8217;s rationale rests on deterrence and basing permanence. Owning territory removes some ambiguities around basing rights and long-term investments in infrastructure. However, converting strategic concerns into lawful acquisition is fraught: international law, alliance commitments and domestic politics in Denmark and Greenland would shape outcomes and could limit U.S. options.<\/p>\n<p>Economically, Greenland&#8217;s resource potential \u2014 minerals, rare earths and hydrocarbons \u2014 is frequently cited as a motivation for outside interest. Commercial opportunities attract energy firms, which is why the Jan. 9 meeting paired Arctic rhetoric with a discussion of Venezuelan oil prospects. Still, the cost, both financial and diplomatic, of pressing a territorial change may outweigh short-term commercial gains.<\/p>\n<h2>Comparison &#038; Data<\/h2>\n<figure>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Metric<\/th>\n<th>Greenland<\/th>\n<th>Alaska (for scale)<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Area (km\u00b2)<\/td>\n<td>2,166,086<\/td>\n<td>1,723,337<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Population (approx.)<\/td>\n<td>56,000<\/td>\n<td>733,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Notable U.S. presence<\/td>\n<td>Thule Air Base and other installations<\/td>\n<td>Multiple military facilities, U.S. state<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/figure>\n<p>The table puts Greenland&#8217;s enormous geographic size into context against a large U.S. state while underscoring its sparse population and strategic installations. Those demographic and infrastructure realities shape the cost-benefit calculations for any prospective change of control and for basing investments.<\/p>\n<h2>Reactions &#038; Quotes<\/h2>\n<p>Denmark and its NATO partners reiterated opposition to any attempt to buy or forcibly take Greenland, framing the issue as one of sovereignty and alliance trust. Below are representative statements reported publicly.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>&#8220;Greenland is not for sale.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><cite>Denmark (government officials, as reported)<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This line, repeated by Danish authorities and allies in public statements, signals firm resistance to transfer proposals and prioritizes Greenlandic self-determination within the kingdom.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>&#8220;We are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><cite>President Donald Trump, Jan. 9, 2026<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Trump&#8217;s remark crystallized the administration&#8217;s posture: a blend of negotiation rhetoric and a stated readiness to pursue alternative measures. It also intensified scrutiny of how the U.S. might operationalize that intent.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Reports have said U.S. officials considered offering lump-sum payments to Greenlanders to influence alignment.<\/p>\n<p><cite>Reuters (news agency, reporting)<\/cite><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Those reports \u2014 which officials have not fully confirmed \u2014 add another dimension to the options under discussion and fuel questions about the ethics and legality of such an approach.<\/p>\n<aside>\n<details>\n<summary>Explainer: Greenland governance and strategic value<\/summary>\n<p>Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. It manages most domestic affairs, while Denmark handles foreign policy and defense. The island&#8217;s Arctic position provides strategic advantages for early-warning systems, air routes and potential natural resources. Thule Air Base is a longstanding U.S. military foothold. Any change in sovereignty would involve Danish constitutional procedures, Greenlandic consent and international legal considerations.<\/p>\n<\/details>\n<\/aside>\n<h2>Unconfirmed<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li>Specific amounts for any proposed lump-sum payments to Greenland residents remain unverified and were not publicly disclosed by U.S. officials.<\/li>\n<li>There is no publicly released, actionable U.S. plan that details how a transfer of sovereignty would be negotiated or executed.<\/li>\n<li>Claims that Russia or China have concrete plans to &#8220;take over&#8221; Greenland are cited by U.S. officials as a rationale but lack public, independently verified evidence of imminent territorial moves.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2>Bottom Line<\/h2>\n<p>The Jan. 9 comments escalate a longstanding strategic debate over Greenland but do not, by themselves, establish a viable legal pathway for transferring sovereignty. They do, however, signal that the U.S. administration views the Arctic as a competitive arena and is willing to foreground territorial options in its strategy.<\/p>\n<p>Diplomatically, the statement complicates ties with Denmark and could prompt formal protest or renewed alliance consultations. Practically, any serious move toward acquisition would require protracted negotiation, Greenlandic engagement and careful navigation of international law \u2014 making rapid change unlikely despite the administration&#8217;s combative language.<\/p>\n<h2>Sources<\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.cnbc.com\/2026\/01\/09\/trump-greenland-military-denmark-nato.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">CNBC<\/a> \u2014 news report of Jan. 9, 2026 (news)<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.reuters.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Reuters<\/a> \u2014 international news agency reporting on related developments (news)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/article>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Lead: On Jan. 9, 2026, at a White House meeting with oil-industry executives, President Donald Trump said his administration will act on Greenland &#8220;whether they like it or not,&#8221; signaling an intention to press the United States&#8217; interest in the Danish territory. The comment came amid wider U.S. moves in the hemisphere after the military &#8230; <a title=\"Trump: \u2018We are going to do something on Greenland whether they like it or not\u2019 &#8211; CNBC\" class=\"read-more\" href=\"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/trump-greenland-denmark-military\/\" aria-label=\"Read more about Trump: \u2018We are going to do something on Greenland whether they like it or not\u2019 &#8211; CNBC\">Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":13780,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"rank_math_title":"Trump vows action on Greenland \u2014 NewsBrief","rank_math_description":"At a Jan. 9 White House meeting, President Trump said the U.S. will act on Greenland \"whether they like it or not,\" raising diplomatic and legal questions with Denmark and NATO.","rank_math_focus_keyword":"trump,greenland,denmark,us-military,nato","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13783","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-top-stories"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13783","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13783"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13783\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13780"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13783"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13783"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/readtrends.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13783"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}