President Donald Trump has escalated his long-running interest in Greenland by arguing that the United States must own the territory to prevent China or Russia from gaining a strategic foothold in the Arctic, remarks that have triggered stark warnings from lawmakers about the risk of a direct confrontation with NATO allies.
In comments made at the White House on Friday, Trump said the U.S. would pursue control of Greenland “the easy way or the hard way,” rejecting the idea that leases, basing agreements, or alliance commitments are sufficient to guarantee long-term security.
He argued that only ownership ensures defense, asserting that foreign powers would otherwise move in.
The remarks mark a sharp departure from traditional U.S. security doctrine and have intensified concern on Capitol Hill, where critics say Trump is openly flirting with a scenario that could place the United States in conflict with Europe.
Lawmaker Warns Of NATO Consequences
Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, said Trump’s comments amount to entertaining a military confrontation with America’s own allies, given Greenland’s political status.
Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, a member of NATO. Under NATO’s collective defense clause, an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all.
“What you are essentially talking about here is the United States going to war with NATO, the United States going to war with Europe,” Murphy said, arguing that any attempt to seize Greenland by force would obligate other NATO countries to respond.
Murphy said the implications should not be downplayed, warning that such a scenario could theoretically put the U.S. in a shooting war with European allies, including France.
He questioned who in the United States would support a conflict with Europe over Greenland, calling it extraordinary that the issue must even be debated.
Ownership Over Alliances
Trump’s comments rest on a broader argument that alliances and access agreements are inherently unreliable.
He has repeatedly said that nations cannot depend on time-limited deals or leases to secure their interests and that ownership is the only durable form of defense.
That framing directly challenges the post-World War II security order, which has relied on shared defense commitments, forward deployments, and alliance coordination rather than territorial acquisition.
Trump has said he supports NATO and credited himself with strengthening the alliance, but his insistence that the U.S. must control Greenland outright stands in tension with those claims, particularly given Denmark’s status as a treaty ally.
China And Russia Framed As Inevitabilities
Trump has justified his position by asserting that Chinese and Russian expansion in the Arctic is inevitable unless the U.S. intervenes.
He has pointed to the presence of foreign naval vessels near Greenland and said Washington will not tolerate either country becoming a “neighbor” via the Arctic.
While stressing that he maintains cordial personal relationships with leaders in Beijing and Moscow, Trump said geopolitical realities leave the U.S. with no choice but to act decisively on Greenland.
Murphy rejected that framing, arguing that Trump views geopolitics through a transactional, real-estate lens rather than through alliance management or diplomacy.
He said the idea that the U.S. must own territory to secure it ignores decades of alliance-based deterrence that have prevented conflict among NATO members.
A Doctrine Shift With Global Implications
The clash underscores a deeper divide over how the U.S. should project power in an era of renewed great-power competition.
Trump’s remarks suggest a security doctrine centered on permanent control rather than partnership, while critics warn that such an approach risks destabilizing the very alliances the U.S. relies on to counter China and Russia.
Trump has not outlined a legal or diplomatic pathway for acquiring Greenland, nor addressed how such a move would be reconciled with international law or Danish and Greenlandic self-governance.
What is clear, however, is that his comments have moved the debate from speculative interest to explicit confrontation, forcing lawmakers and allies alike to grapple with the consequences of a U.S. president openly questioning whether alliances, rather than ownership, remain the foundation of American security.
Read Next: Trump's $200B Stealth Stimulus: The Mortgage Plan That's Actually A Crypto Catalyst In Disguise