Trump’s team races to come up with a Greenland takeover plan — here’s what’s at stake

The Trump administration is preparing for a high-stakes meeting with Danish officials next week, seeking to discuss how the U.S. can acquire the world’s largest island.

The White House has spoken frequently about taking control of Greenland in the wake of a weekend military operation to depose Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, raising alarm in Europe about Washington’s territorial ambitions.

President Donald Trump, who has long coveted making Greenland a part of the United States, has said the mineral-rich and sparsely populated island is integral to national security and insisted he’s “very serious” about trying to acquire it.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has since urged Trump to “stop the threats,” while Greenland’s leader described the notion of U.S. control over the territory as a “fantasy.”

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday that he intends to convene with senior government officials next week to discuss the situation. It comes after a request from Denmark’s Foreign Minister Lokke Rasmussen and his Greenlandic counterpart, Vivian Motzfeldt.

CNBC takes a look at four key issues ahead of the meeting.

Speaking on Wednesday, Rubio was asked by a reporter if he would withdraw the option of using the U.S. military to take over Greenland.

“I’m not here to talk about Denmark or military intervention,” Rubio said, before reiterating his plans to meet with Danish officials next week. “We’ll have conversations with them then, but I’m not adding things further … to that today.”

His comments came as the White House confirmed that Trump and his national security team were “actively” discussing a potential offer to buy Greenland — and that while diplomacy has always been the first option, all options, including military force, remain on the table.

Trump previously sought to buy Greenland in 2019 during his first term as U.S. president, only to be told the island was not for sale.

The prospect of U.S. military action in Greenland, meanwhile, triggered a strong response from Denmark’s Frederiksen.

“I believe that the U.S. president should be taken seriously when he says that he wants Greenland,” Frederiksen told Danish broadcaster TV2 on Monday, according to a CNBC translation.

“But I also want to make it clear, that 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,” she added.

Top Republican and Democrat lawmakers have also pushed back on the idea of using military force to take over Greenland.

European leaders, who had previously been reluctant to exercise megaphone diplomacy in defense of Greenland, changed tack earlier in the week.

“The Kingdom of Denmark – including Greenland – is part of NATO,” a joint letter published by several European leaders said on Tuesday.

“Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland,” they added.

Rasmus Sinding Søndergaard, senior researcher with the foreign policy and diplomacy department at the Danish Institute for International Studies, said diplomatic engagement should be the primary focus for European policymakers when they sit down with Rubio next week.

Other avenues for European lawmakers to consider include further robust political statements, lobbying U.S. officials who do not want to see any military action in Greenland and, potentially, threats of economic retaliation, Søndergaard said.

He conceded, however, that there were likely limitations for Europe in case of a worst-case scenario where the U.S. seeks to take Greenland by force, citing other security concerns for European countries, namely Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

“Greenland is a territory that is not very easily defended militarily. There is very little infrastructure, and it is obviously a very large island, so this idea of having some sort of military defense is not really what we’re looking at here,” Søndergaard told CNBC’s “Europe Early Edition” on Thursday.

Opinion polls have previously shown that Greenlanders overwhelmingly oppose U.S. control, while a strong majority support independence from Denmark.

Tony Sage, CEO of Critical Metals, which is developing one of the world’s largest rare earth assets in southern Greenland, said one aspect of the situation that seems to have been overlooked is that most Greenlanders favor independence.

“I believe — having a lot of experience in Greenland over the last two years, personally — but our partner, who’s been there 20 years, knows the people very well. They’re very staunch, and they want independence,” Sage told CNBC’s “The China Connection” on Thursday.

“So, I believe they will go for independence when they announce their referendum, and that’s where Denmark and the U.S. have really got to come to grips with the situation,” he continued. “Who’s going to be the biggest benefactor of that independence if they, in fact, do go ahead with the referendum.”

Greenland, a self-governing Danish territory of around 57,000 people, was granted greater autonomy over its affairs in 2009 through a self-government act, although Denmark remains responsible for the island’s foreign and defense policies.

The act also gave the island the right to hold an independence referendum. Most Greenlandic political parties support independence, although they are split over the pace with which to reach it.

In setting his sights on the vast and sparsely populated Arctic island once again, Trump suggested that Russia and China pose a security challenge to the U.S. in Greenland.

“It’s so strategic,” Trump told reporters onboard Air Force One on Sunday. “Right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place. We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security.”

Analysts, however, have questioned Trump’s assertion that Greenland must be acquired on national security grounds, while European leaders have said Arctic security is an objective that must be achieved collectively.

Marion Messmer, director of the International Security Programme at London’s Chatham House think tank, acknowledged that it is true to say that both Russia and China have increased their military activities in the Arctic in recent years — and, if Moscow launched missiles at the U.S., they would likely fly over Greenland.

“However, what is not clear is why Washington needs full control over Greenland to defend itself,” Messmer said in a written analysis published Tuesday.

She cited the fact that the U.S. already has a presence at Pituffik Space Base, as well as a decades-old defense agreement with Denmark that allows Washington to continue to use it.