Is Greenland next and can the EU protect it?

Is US President Donald Trump eyeing Greenland again? The year 2026 has barely begun, and Trump has already invaded Venezuela, kidnapped its controversial leader Nicolas Maduro, and renewed threats against several other sovereign territories – including the Danish autonomous territory of Greenland.

Denmark: US 'has no right to annex' Greenland

Concerns in Europe have grown after a recent social media post by Katie Miller, wife of senior White House official Stephen Miller, and an interview Trump gave to The Atlantic. In it, the US president repeated his long-standing claim: "We absolutely need Greenland. We need it for defense."

On Sunday, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen completely rejected those statements.

"It makes absolutely no sense to talk about the US taking over Greenland," Frederiksen said. "The United States has no right to annex any of the three countries in the Kingdom of Denmark," she said.

This is not the first time Trump has floated the idea of ​​annexing Greenland. He has repeatedly offered to buy it and has not ruled out military force. But the renewed rhetoric comes at a time of heightened geopolitical tensions, raising questions about how Europe would react if words were to be put into action.

Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and Denmark is a NATO ally of the United States. Any attempt to annex the islands would effectively end the transatlantic alliance, says Jakob Funk Kierkegaard of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

In January 2025, a poll showed that a majority of Greenlanders, about 56 percent, wanted independence from Denmark. But it also showed that almost no one favored joining the United States – only six percent said they favored that option.

What does Trump want in Greenland?

Trump presented his interest as a matter of national security, claiming that Greenland is "surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships."

That claim is false, both Kierkegaard and Michael Paul of the German think tank Foundation for Science and Politics (SWP) tell DW. Yet Greenland possesses vast untapped natural resources, including oil and key minerals – a similarity it shares with Venezuela. But, according to Paul, the problem goes beyond raw materials alone.

“Both Greenland and Denmark are open to greater American involvement,” Paul says. “Just a year ago, Greenland’s mining minister wrote in The Washington Post that without greater American investment, Greenland would increasingly have to turn to other investors, even China,” he adds.

The problem, however, is not primarily a military approach. Denmark has already increased its military presence around the islands, and the United States could do the same within the framework of existing agreements. “If Trump wanted more American troops, their deployment would not be a problem,” Kierkegaard notes. “There is a defense agreement between the United States and Denmark,” he reminds us.

Kierkegaard thinks Trump's motivation seems more symbolic than strategic. "The reality is that he seems to have concluded that he wants to make America bigger on the map," he says. "That's not rational—and that's something that only Congress or the Supreme Court can block."

What can the EU do to protect Greenland?

The European Union has long struggled to find a balance between preserving transatlantic ties and asserting its own strategic autonomy. Following Trump's latest statements, EU officials announced on January 5 that the bloc "supports the universal principles of national sovereignty and territorial integrity, especially if a member state is threatened."

"If Trump decides to annex Greenland by force, very little can be done in the short term," Kierkegaard told DW. "That goes for Greenland, for Denmark and for the EU."

For now, diplomacy remains Europe’s main weapon. EU officials say no formal talks with Washington are planned, but Kierkegaard believes Brussels’ most effective channel would be informal contact with the US Congress. Any annexation – or major military action – would still require congressional approval. Kierkegaard says European leaders could make it clear what is at stake: the dissolution of NATO, the closure of US bases in Europe and potential sanctions on US companies doing business in the EU.

Are developments in Venezuela a warning sign?

Events in Venezuela offer two lessons. First, the Trump administration did not inform Congress in advance of its operation against Maduro. Critics see the move as testing the limits of presidential power. Second, the EU has again reacted cautiously, calling for respect for international law while refraining from condemning its most important ally.

The case of Venezuela highlights how unpredictable an American president can be. As 2026 begins, European leaders are bracing for a difficult year – one in which their transatlantic balancing act could become even more difficult.