U.S. President Donald Trump’s renewed threats toward Greenland have raised alarm among NATO allies and NATO officials, the Associated Press reported.
In a statement issued Tuesday, the White House said Greenland is “a national security priority” and that the president and his team are discussing “a range of options” that could include military action to pursue what it described as an important foreign policy goal. The statement added that “utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the commander in chief’s disposal,” according to the AP.
Trump’s interest in Greenland has unfolded alongside his public remarks about NATO’s reliance on the United States. In a social media post Wednesday, he wrote, “RUSSIA AND CHINA HAVE ZERO FEAR OF NATO WITHOUT THE UNITED STATES.” He also added, “We will always be there for NATO, even if they won’t be there for us.”
The Greenland episode places strain on a core assumption of NATO’s collective-defense structure. NATO’s founding treaty includes an Article 5 security guarantee that an attack on any member’s ranks will be met with a response from all members, and the AP report said the guarantee would not function if one member targets another.
NATO allies moved to reaffirm Greenland’s sovereignty after Trump’s threats. Leaders of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain, along with Denmark, issued a joint statement defending the island’s status. In that statement, they said: “It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.” The AP reported that Canada also expressed support.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that the U.S. threat must be taken seriously and said that any American attempt to take control of the island could mean the end of NATO, according to the AP. When asked whether Frederiksen was right to say that “everything stops” after an American attack on another NATO country, an alliance official told the AP on the condition of anonymity because NATO protocol forbids naming officials.
The official said, “NATO does not speculate on hypotheticals.” The official instead emphasized Greenland’s strategic significance, saying: “The Arctic is an important region for our collective security, and NATO has a clear interest in preserving security, stability and cooperation in the high north.” The official added, “Together we make sure that the whole of the alliance is protected.”
Analysts said the dispute risks distracting NATO members at a time when U.S.-led efforts to end the war in Ukraine are entering what the AP described as a pivotal stage. Maria Martisiute, a defense analyst at the European Policy Center, warned that NATO’s credibility is on the line, saying that when a leading alliance member undermines another, it hurts “NATO’s cohesion and credibility,” and that it “serves only our adversaries such as Russia and China.”
Ian Lesser, a distinguished fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, said the White House statement was “very striking.” Lesser described the possibility of military action as “a low-probability, high-consequence event if it were to happen,” but said “the odds have changed,” making it harder to dismiss the remarks as bluster from the White House.
The episode comes after NATO leaders last summer rallied behind Trump’s demand that they increase defense spending. The AP reported that, apart from Spain, they agreed to invest as much per capita as the United States does, within a decade. Just before Christmas, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte told BBC radio that, “thanks to Donald J. Trump, NATO is stronger than it ever was,” adding, “NATO has never been as strong as this moment since the fall of the Berlin Wall.”
At the end of the year, Rutte warned in Germany that Russia might attack elsewhere in Europe within a few years if it wins in Ukraine, according to the AP. Lesser said it was difficult to reconcile Trump’s defense-spending push with his designs on Greenland, asking, “What good is it to have revived NATO capability if it’s no longer a functional political alliance” and concluding that a breakdown would be “a gift to Moscow, and it’s a gift to Beijing.”