By Joshua Arnold

As the second Trump administration reaches its one-year anniversary, no one can deny that President Donald Trump has reshaped not only American politics but the entire world. But Trump is no longer satisfied with tariffs and peace talks; he has set his eyes on a grander prize, an object America has rarely sought since the days of President Theodore Roosevelt: territorial acquisition. The territory in Trump’s crosshairs is the world’s largest island, a mostly glacier-covered wilderness deceptively called “Greenland.”

Despite widespread opposition, President Trump manages to mention his desire to own Greenland nearly every day. “I had a very good telephone call with Mark Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO, concerning Greenland,” Trump posted to Truth Social shortly after midnight on Tuesday. “As I expressed to everyone, very plainly, Greenland is imperative for National and World Security. There can be no going back — On that, everyone agrees! The United States of America is the most powerful Country anywhere on the Globe, by far.”

This past weekend, Trump escalated the Greenland question into an international incident when he threatened on Saturday to levy punitive tariffs against eight European nations opposed to his plan to annex Greenland. Last Wednesday, seven nations in western and northern Europe deployed token forces (for a combined total of slightly more than 30) to Greenland for Arctic military drills, signaling their continued support for Danish sovereignty over the island. Denmark boosted its military footprint in Greenland by just over 100 soldiers.

In a Saturday Truth Social post, Trump interpreted these small deployments in a nefarious light. “Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, The United Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Finland have journeyed to Greenland, for purposes unknown,” the president wrote. “These Countries, who are playing this very dangerous game, have put a level of risk in play that is not tenable or sustainable.”

As a result, Trump said he would impose a 10% tariff on these seven countries for “any and all goods sent to the United States of America … until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.” The tariff would take effect on February 1 and increased to 25% on June 1.

The European response to this announcement was apoplectic. The European Union’s 27 member states convened an emergency meeting in Cyprus on Sunday to discuss their response, with leaders floating ideas ranging from reciprocal tariffs to boycotting the World Cup.

The leader of the European People’s Party (EPP), the largest bloc in the European Parliament, responded that Trump’s tariff threat compromises the passage of the EU-U.S. trade deal. “The EPP is in favour of the EU-U.S. trade deal, but given Donald Trump’s threats regarding Greenland, approval is not possible at this stage,” he wrote. “The 0% tariffs on U.S. products must be put on hold.”

Europe’s pique points to the greatest risk in Trump’s gamble for Greenland. As Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen put it, any American invasion of Greenland would spell “the end of NATO,” as one member would be invading the territory of another. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, whose member nations cover most of North America and Europe, is the world’s largest military alliance and an important part of America’s globally dominant position since World War II.

As readers may find it strange that President Trump would bet America’s largest military alliance for the territory of Greenland, an explanation of his reasoning is in order.

Both the president and his top officials have repeatedly cited America’s national security as the top reason for annexing Greenland. In his Truth Social post on tariffs, Trump declared that “the National Security of the United States, and the World at large, is at stake” in the Greenland question. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent argued in a recent interview, “For over a century, American presidents have wanted to acquire Greenland, and what we can see is that Greenland is essential to the U.S. national security.”

Why does Greenland factor into American security considerations? Trump explained, “China and Russia want Greenland, and there is not a thing that Denmark can do about it.” Bessent explained that Trump is thinking ahead to an inevitable competition with America’s geopolitical rivals over Arctic resources. “It might not be next year, might not be in five years, but down the road, this fight for the Arctic is real,” he insisted. “President Trump strongly believes that we cannot outsource our security.”

But how does possession of Greenland actually bolster U.S. national security? Two considerations come into play. First, Greenland holds vast, undeveloped mineral reserves, including rare earth elements, uranium, copper, graphite, gallium, tungsten, zinc, gold, silver, and iron ore. Controlling these resources would ensure America’s future access to critical military equipment and technology.

Second, Greenland plays a key role in Trump’s scheme for a “Golden Dome,” a continent-wide missile system that would make the U.S. nearly impervious to an intercontinental missile strike. With Alaska and the continental U.S., Greenland would form the third point in a vast triangle of geopolitical security. “Hundreds of Billions of Dollars are currently being spent on Security Programs having to do with ‘The Dome,’” wrote Trump, but “this very brilliant, but highly complex system can only work at its maximum potential and efficiency, because of angles, metes, and bounds, if this Land [Greenland] is included in it.”

Ironically, Trump’s concern for Greenland was heightened by the shift Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has made to align his nation with China, not the United States. In his Tuesday comments at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Carney declared that the “old … rules-based international order” was dead, leading Canada to “fundamentally shift our strategic posture.” On Friday, Carney announced a preliminary trade deal with China during a visit to Beijing, which his office described as “the foundation for a new strategic partnership.”

The “rules-based international order” Carney rejected is one built by the U.S. and like-minded allies after World War II. Principles such as territorial integrity were enshrined in the NATO treaty and other documents of the era. Territorial integrity is a corollary of national sovereignty and is ultimately rooted in Just War Theory. The aim was to forestall future wars by ruling out the ambition for territorial conquest, which characterized Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, imperial Japan, and the communist USSR.

Defending the principle of territorial integrity — which had the added bonus of constraining America’s communist rivals — led America into the Korean War (to defend South Korea) and the first Gulf War (to defend Kuwait). But these actions showed that America was willing to enforce this principle, thus deterring an unknown number of other aggressor nations over at least half a century, contributing to an environment of global peace that benefited America’s status as a worldwide merchant.

In other words, the international order which Canada has now rejected is one created by America for America’s benefit. A major reason why Canada rejected this order is because the government has increasingly lost faith in the will of the U.S. — particularly the Trump administration — to uphold it. This lack of faith is largely due to Trump’s own actions, which have called the principle of territorial integrity into question.

Even in an era defined by conflict with non-state terrorists, who do not hold territory, the principle of territorial integrity remains relevant. For instance, it provides a basis for condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It also provides a basis for deterring conflicts that have been threatened but not yet begun, such as communist China’s planned annexation of Taiwan.

The principle of territorial integrity even restrains ambitious leaders from acting on their ambitions, such as Turkish President Recep Erdogan’s ambition to reforge the Ottoman Empire. One ranking places Turkey’s military as the 9th most powerful in the world, the strongest state between India and France. If Erdogan did embark on a campaign to recapture lost Ottoman lands, he could easily gobble up prostrate Syria, divided Lebanon, fledgling Iraq, and non-entity Libya, enabling him to train considerable firepower against Israel from east, north, and west. But Erdogan is not able to conquer these struggling states because of the influence (and presence) of powerful Western nations, who insist that strong states are not allowed to steal territory from weaker ones.

If the U.S. wrestles Greenland away from our own NATO ally Denmark, then this U.S.-built international order loses all credibility.

America’s international order does provide a way for national borders to change: the people of that country can vote for a change (usually independence, not reunification). In January 2025 (the most recent poll available), 85% of Greenlanders opposed joining the U.S., while only 6% favored the change.

There is one other factor that may have influenced Trump’s thinking on Greenland, one which is more personal than U.S. national security. Trump himself revealed this motive in a text exchange with Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre.

“Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America,” Trump wrote, according to wording first published by The Independent, a British paper. “I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland,” Trump concluded.

Trump has made no secret about his desire to win the distinguished Nobel Peace Prize. But, last year, the Nobel Committee awarded the prize to Venezuelan opposition leader in exile Maria Corina Machado — a worthy candidate, but not Trump. Last week, Machado presented her Nobel Prize as a gift to Trump during her first visit to the White House. However, Trump doubtless remains hungry to win the prize in his own right.

The deadline for Nobel nominations is January 31 of every year, less than two weeks away. Trump may have ramped up his Greenland rhetoric and explicitly connected it to his Nobel snub as a way to pressure the committee into giving his nomination a harder look. If so, then it’s more than ironic that Trump is hoping to win a peace prize by threatening to take territory from an ally.

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.