Donald Trump’s Greenland obsession has reached a breaking point. Despite declaring anything less than full U.S. control of the Arctic territory “unacceptable,” he’s running headlong into two inconvenient realities: NATO allies are actively deploying military assets to defend Danish sovereignty, and his own countrymen overwhelmingly want nothing to do with this territorial conquest.
A Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday delivers a devastating verdict on Trump’s expansionist dreams. A staggering 86 percent of Americans oppose using military force to take Greenland, including 68 percent of Republicans. Even the softer option of purchasing the territory fails to find majority support, with 55 percent opposed to buying it and just 37 percent in favor.
Denmark Responds With Jets, Ships, and Soldiers
While Trump posted on Truth Social that “NATO should be leading the way for us to get” Greenland, the alliance has instead rallied to defend one of its founding members. Denmark announced Wednesday that it would significantly increase its military presence in and around Greenland, deploying fighter aircraft, naval vessels, and troops in cooperation with NATO allies.
Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen delivered the message pointedly after White House talks with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio yielded nothing but a “fundamental disagreement.” Responding to Trump’s dismissive claim that Greenland was defended only by “two dogsleds,” Rasmussen shot back: “not dogsleds, but ships, drones, fighter jets.”
Sweden has already sent troops to the territory following Denmark’s request. France deployed reconnaissance operators this week. Germany, Norway, and other NATO allies conducted joint exercises throughout 2025 focused on defending Greenland’s critical infrastructure. The message from Europe couldn’t be clearer: this is not negotiable.
Greenland’s Answer: ‘We Choose Denmark’
The people most affected by Trump’s ambitions have rendered their own verdict. Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen stated unequivocally this week that “we choose Denmark” and that the island “will not be governed by the United States.” Trump’s response was characteristically dismissive: “that’s gonna be a big problem for him.”
A 2025 Veria poll found that 85 percent of Greenlanders reject being part of the United States. Just 6 percent supported an American takeover. Greenland’s foreign minister Vivian Motzfeldt, who attended the White House meeting alongside Rasmussen, drew her own red line: “We have shown where our limits are. It is in everyone’s interest to find the right path, but that path does not include ownership.”
Republican Cracks Emerge
The political pressure is building even within Trump’s own party. Senator Mitch McConnell delivered a blistering rebuke on the Senate floor Wednesday, warning that seizing Greenland would “incinerate the hard-won trust of loyal allies in exchange for no meaningful change in U.S. access to the Arctic.”
House Speaker Mike Johnson stated plainly that he doesn’t “think it’s appropriate” for the U.S. to take military action against Greenland. A bipartisan coalition led by Representatives Bill Keating and Don Bacon introduced the No Funds for NATO Invasion Act, which would prohibit federal funds from being used to invade any NATO member state or territory.
North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis offered the bluntest assessment in a floor speech about Trump’s expansionist agenda: “I am sick of stupid.”
The Strategic Reality
Trump’s argument for acquiring Greenland rests on national security grounds, particularly the development of his “Golden Dome” missile defense system. He’s not wrong that the Arctic holds strategic value. Greenland sits along the most likely trajectory for Russian ballistic missiles targeting the United States and guards part of the GIUK Gap where NATO monitors Russian naval movements.
But the absurdity of Trump’s approach lies in the fact that the U.S. already has everything it needs. A 1951 defense treaty with Denmark guarantees American military access to Greenland. The U.S. has maintained bases there since World War II. Pituffik Space Base remains one of the military’s most critical Arctic installations.
As Greenland’s foreign minister noted, “all of the things that he so wants he already can have.” The existing framework provides for expanded U.S. presence if requested through NATO channels, exactly the kind of cooperative security arrangement that has kept the alliance intact for 75 years.
What’s Actually at Stake
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has been explicit about the consequences: “If the United States chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops. That is, including our NATO and thus the security that has been provided since the end of the Second World War.”
This isn’t diplomatic posturing. Denmark, per capita, suffered the second-highest casualty rate of any NATO ally in Afghanistan after the United States. The only time Article 5 has been invoked in NATO’s history was by America following 9/11, and Denmark answered that call.
The Atlantic Council described the current crisis as potentially “the worst crisis of NATO’s existence.” Military analysts told CNBC that while a U.S. military takeover of Greenland would likely be “unopposed” in practical terms, such a move would mark the end of the alliance itself.
The Bottom Line
Trump has proven adept at moving Republican opinion in his direction, as the dramatic swing in support for the Venezuela operation demonstrated. But conquering an ally’s territory to acquire an Arctic island that most Americans don’t want is a fundamentally different proposition than overthrowing a narco-state dictator.
The president may not care about polling, congressional pushback, or European outrage. He’s shown remarkable indifference to all three. But the math here is brutal: destroying the most successful military alliance in history to acquire territory he essentially already has access to, against the explicit wishes of the people who live there and the majority of Americans at home.
Trump told reporters he would “love to make a deal” but promised that “one way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland.” The question now is whether his definition of victory is worth the price of NATO itself.