Do you support efforts by the United States to increase its strategic control or ownership interests in Greenland?

Background

The question of U.S. strategic control over Greenland has become one of the most contentious issues in transatlantic relations. Greenland, the world's largest island, is a self-governing territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, home to roughly 57,000 people, and situated at a geographic crossroads between North America, Europe, and the Arctic. The United States has maintained a military presence there since World War II, most notably at Pituffik Space Base, which supports missile early-warning systems and space surveillance under a 1951 U.S.-Denmark defense agreement. President Trump has intensified pressure since late 2025 to bring Greenland under U.S. control, citing growing Russian and Chinese activity in the Arctic and the island's vast reserves of rare earth minerals. Both Danish and Greenlandic leaders have firmly stated that Greenland is not for sale, and according to the Congressional Research Service, 85 percent of Greenlandic respondents in a January 2025 poll said they would not want to leave Denmark to become part of the United States. European allies including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have issued joint statements defending Greenland's sovereignty.

Supporters of expanded U.S. control argue that Greenland is a vital national security asset. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Greenland sits along the shortest route a Russian ballistic missile would travel to reach the continental United States and straddles emerging Arctic shipping lanes that are becoming increasingly viable due to climate change. Proponents contend that the warming Arctic is rapidly transforming from a frozen frontier into a theater of strategic competition, as the German Marshall Fund has noted, and that only direct American control can adequately counter Russian and Chinese ambitions. Opponents, however, argue that current arrangements already serve U.S. security needs effectively. Chatham House has observed that it is unclear why Washington requires full control when it already operates Pituffik Space Base under the existing defense agreement with Denmark. Critics also warn that coercive tactics toward a NATO ally risk undermining the credibility of the alliance itself, with Denmark's prime minister cautioning that a U.S. attack on Greenland would effectively end NATO.

The stakes extend well beyond Arctic strategy. According to the Congressional Research Service, tensions over Greenland have already strained the historically close U.S.-Denmark relationship and become a source of contention across U.S.-European relations. Members of Congress have introduced bills ranging from resolutions affirming the U.S. partnership with Denmark to legislation that would authorize Greenland's annexation, reflecting deep divisions in Washington. For Greenlanders, the crisis has complicated their own longstanding aspirations for independence from Denmark, with a report on possible paths to sovereignty expected by the end of 2026. Any resolution, whether through expanded defense agreements, a compact of free association, or some form of shared sovereignty, will shape the future of Arctic governance, the durability of NATO, and the self-determination of the Greenlandic people for decades to come.