This week, on January 20, 2026, Donald Trump marked the first anniversary of his return to the U.S. presidency. Over the past year, his administration has shaken up relations with European allies, but few moves have been as startling as his approach to Greenland.
In recent months, the U.S. president has publicly floated purchasing the island from Denmark or even using force to seize it. After the U.S. intervention in Venezuela this January, Greenland was explicitly labeled a national security priority, and tariffs were imposed on European objections—a direct challenge to the sovereignty of Denmark, a NATO member, and a blow to diplomatic norms.
These actions carry three major consequences. First, they threaten the Arctic governance framework. For decades, multilateral bodies like the Arctic Council have upheld regional cooperation through consensus. Now, U.S. demands and unilateral pressure risk fragmenting these institutions and reintroducing great power competition to the High North.
Second, invoking “national security” to justify interference with an ally undermines international law. By sidelining the UN Charter’s principles on territorial integrity, the U.S. sets a dangerous precedent: great powers may override legal norms when convenient, further shifting global order toward raw power politics.
Third, the Greenland gambit deepens a trust deficit within NATO. Coercion against a fellow alliance member strikes at the ethical core of collective defense. European capitals are already reassessing Washington’s reliability, accelerating conversations about strategic autonomy and alternative security arrangements.
Greenland is emblematic of a broader unilateral trend this year: direct U.S. ceasefire talks with Russia over Ukraine, broad 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum affecting the EU and UK, and demands that NATO members spend 5 percent of GDP on defense. Together, these moves have intensified friction across the Atlantic.
Yet a wholesale collapse of the alliance remains unlikely in the near term. Europe still relies on U.S. military deterrence against Russia; it lacks the fiscal and industrial base for rapid, large-scale autonomy; and rightward shifts in European politics mean some governments may continue to align with Washington despite Greenland tensions.
As the Greenland controversy unfolds, it underscores deeper fractures in transatlantic ties. But for now, strategic imperatives and shared security concerns continue to hold NATO together—even as trust erodes.
Reference(s):
U.S. ambition for Greenland deepens transatlantic trust deficit
cgtn.com
