Why is Donald Trump so obsessed with Greenland and could Europe really go to war with the US?

Welcome to 2026 everybody

Greenland must be feeling pretty desirable right now because, let's not beat around the bush here, 18 months ago no one really gave two thoughts about this autonomous region of the Kingdom of Denmark.

In all honesty, it wasn't dealt the best hand by Mother Nature; nine times the size of the UK but 80% of its landmass is covered by ice, a population of around 56,000 people and geographically remote from most big players on the global stage.

It's no surprise then that the famous story goes that Norse explorer Erik the Red named it Greenland around 982 AD in an attempt to attract people to the icy island.

So, with all this in mind, why on earth is Donald Trump so obsessed with Greenland, even when the US already has a military facility in the territory and is a member of NATO just like Denmark?

It couldn't be natural resources again could it!?

Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that the US "needs" Greenland for "national security".

This is the main narrative behind the threats that, by acquiring the territory, the US could expand military operations in the name of fending off Russia and China.

The US president claimed that "Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place".

He has also said: "We need Greenland for national security, not minerals."

While this could be a genuine reason, we've seen this smokescreen employed numerous times by Trump and previous US presidents in the form of a 'war on...insert reason here'.

We saw this just last week when Trump intervened in Venezuela to capture president Maduro under the pretence of a 'war on drugs'.

So, Trump seems to be selling Greenland as the 'war against Russia and China' in the interest of national security.

But, just like Venezuela has the world's largest oil reserves, Greenland is rich in resources, and Trump remains a businessman.

While Greenland's main industry is fishing, the real treasure lies beneath the ice sheet in the form of rare earth minerals, uranium, iron, zinc, lead, gold, copper, and potentially - wait for it - oil!

While there is without doubt an interest in expanding military presence in Greenland, this extra factor remains evident.

This is further exacerbated by the fact the US, as NATO partners of Denmark, could easily request to increase their presence on the island without taking it from an ally who supported the US in the War on Terror by sending troops to Afghanistan.

Could Europe go to war with America?

While this eventuality remains highly improbable, under this Trump administration anything remains possible.

Such assumptions can only be based off precedent, and Trump has plenty of it, intervening already in Iran via the air and Venezuela on the ground since he returned to the presidency in January 2025.

Meanwhile, Greenland has not been a throwaway affair, but rather a serious obsession which Trump has mentioned numerous times since his re-election, in a similar fashion to Venezuela.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio insisted America would rather buy the island, however, at this moment in time, with the White House saying military action "is always an option", no one would be surprised to wake up to the news that US forces had landed in Greenland to take control.

Of course, we can only hope that this does not happen, as the ramifications would be terrible.

Europe would be forced to choose between appeasement by allowing the US to forcibly take a European-controlled territory, or go to war with the nation which was once one of its closest allies.

Such a scenario, while scary, is not completely unheard of, with George Orwell writing in his infamous book 'Nineteen Eighty-Four' that Greenland would be a key disputed battleground between the powers of Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia.

The only oversight to this scenario was that Britain was on the side of the US against Europe - who knows whether that will become reality, but Britain has already condemned American advances along with other European nations.

What does this mean for NATO

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is the West's greatest defence against perceived threats from the likes of Russia and China, at least in the mind of world leaders.

However, opponents to this bloc will no doubt be watching the scenario with bated breath as it potentially watches NATO fall apart from within.

In the situation Trump does forcibly take Greenland, it is unlikely NATO could ever be the same, and the US would almost certainly be cast out.

This probably wouldn't bother Trump that much, with the US president previously making backhanded comments about the alliance, largely calling out what he sees as insufficient spending from some nations.

Meanwhile, he has also thrown doubts over Article Five of the treaty, which states "an attack on one is an attack on all", leading to a full response from every nation.

Ultimately, conflict in Greenland would not be a win for anybody in the West, but ultimately a huge victory for their biggest opponents on the world stage, setting a dangerous precedent that violence and invasion is acceptable and back on the table.