Greenland and the Shock to Trust: How Trump’s Rhetoric Is Shaking the Alliance Order

WASHINGTON — For decades, the relationship between the United States, Denmark, and Greenland was considered a quiet pillar of the North Atlantic order: stable, strategic, and largely uncontroversial. But in recent days, a new round of statements by President Donald Trump has unsettled that foundation, triggering unprecedented anxiety in Greenland — a territory without an army, reliant on international law and alliances to safeguard its sovereignty.

“We’ll have Greenland one way or another,” Mr. Trump said, echoing language that has repeatedly appeared in posts on Truth Social and in remarks to reporters. To veteran diplomats and many members of Congress, the rhetoric is not merely provocative — it is deeply damaging to America’s credibility within the Western alliance system.

Anxiety in Nuuk

In Nuuk, Greenland’s small capital, those remarks are not dismissed as political theater. They are heard as a genuine threat.

“The most frightening thing is the uncertainty,” one Greenlandic businesswoman said in a recent television interview. “If in a month you don’t know which country you’re living in, that’s no longer politics — that’s fear.”

Greenland has no military. No independent defense doctrine. And no capacity to resist the power of the U.S. military should the worst-case scenario materialize. That reality gives the president’s words a far heavier weight on the island than they may carry in Washington.

A Meeting With High Stakes

Against that backdrop, a White House meeting between Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland has been widely described by diplomats as a “big meeting.” Yet even before talks began, many feared the diplomatic ground had already been weakened.

“President Trump undermined the very diplomacy of the meeting with his morning statements,” a former U.S. ambassador said on MSNBC. “Diplomacy requires trust. And right now, that trust is eroding.”

Greenlandic and Danish officials have remained firm: Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a member of NATO, and aligned with the European Union. The question of Greenlandic independence — supported by a broad majority of the population — is a matter for Greenlanders themselves, not the result of outside pressure.

Allies, Not Assets

What alarms many American observers is not only Greenland’s situation, but the broader message Washington appears to be sending.

“Greenland is not for sale,” a bipartisan group of lawmakers has emphasized in closed-door discussions. New legislation and a congressional delegation traveling to Copenhagen signal an effort by Congress to reassert its authority, underscoring that any action involving territory or military force must go through the legislative branch.

On American social media platforms, particularly X, former defense officials, scholars, and journalists have raised a stark question: If the United States can openly threaten a NATO ally, what limits remain?

More Than Greenland

Few dispute the Arctic’s growing strategic importance. Climate change, emerging shipping routes, and rare earth minerals have turned Greenland into a geopolitical focal point. Many experts agree that both the United States and NATO have neglected Arctic security for too long.

But, as one former State Department official put it, “You can strengthen security, invest militarily, and cooperate on mining without threatening the sovereignty of an ally.”

Denmark’s recent decision to deploy additional military equipment to Greenland is a defensive move — but also a sign of how tensions are escalating, driven largely by rhetoric from Washington.

Damage That May Not Heal Quickly

Perhaps the deepest consequences are not unfolding in Greenland, but in America’s global image. After the Iraq War, U.S. credibility suffered deeply. During the Obama years, some of that trust was restored. Trump’s first term eroded it again, but many allies viewed that period as an aberration.

This time is different.

Trump was reelected, winning the popular vote. To many abroad, that outcome carries a blunt conclusion: this is no longer a fluke, but a democratic choice by the American electorate.

“If a Democratic president takes office tomorrow,” a European scholar wrote on X, “trust will not simply snap back. The fracture is already there.”

A Crossroads for American Leadership

The central question now is not whether the United States can “take” Greenland. It is what kind of global actor America intends to be.

A power rooted in alliances, rules, and consent?
Or one willing to rely on pressure and threats — even against friends?

For Greenlanders, this question is not theoretical. It is bound up with the fear that they could wake up one morning to find their future decided elsewhere.

For the United States, it is a test of the leadership role it built — and now risks losing — over nearly a century.