U.S. ambition for Greenland further deepens transatlantic trust deficit

Editor's Note: Xu Weijun is an associate research professor at the Institute of Public Policy, South China University of Technology. His research interests include East Asian international relations, nationalism, Chinese diplomacy and China-U.S. relations. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily those of CGTN.

January 20, 2026 marks the first anniversary of Donald Trump's return to the office of the president of the United States. Over the past year, U.S. policy towards its allies has undergone significant adjustments, producing profound disruptions in the transatlantic alliance.

While the Trump administration has pursued unilateral and assertive strategies on multiple fronts, including direct negotiations with Russia over Ukraine, the imposition of broad tariffs on European allies, and demands for massive increases in NATO defense spending, it is the administration's actions concerning the Arctic that represent the most disruptive shift. These moves have not only altered previous collaborative governance models based on rules and consultation but have also exacerbated deep divisions within the alliance.

The most alarming development lies in the series of statements and actions by the U.S. concerning Greenland. President Trump has publicly discussed acquiring the island through purchase or other means, and has even suggested the possibility of using military force to seize it. Following the overt invasion of Venezuela in January 2026, the Trump administration explicitly declared Greenland a target for U.S. intervention and asserted that control over the island constituted a national security priority for the U.S.

Moreover, Trump resorted to tariffs to exert pressure on European allies opposing its objectives in Greenland, imposing additional duties on those that did not align with his stance. These moves constituted a clear infringement on the fundamental principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, thereby provoking profound discontent from Denmark and multiple NATO members. Consequently, Arctic issues have been elevated from the dimension of resource and environmental governance to that of a potential point of tension in great power geopolitics.

This aggressive pursuit of territorial acquisition in Greenland represents a direct infringement on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a NATO ally, a move that will likely have three major consequences. 

Firstly, it eroded the Arctic governance framework. The Trump administration's actions threaten to exacerbate the stagnation and fragmentation of Arctic governance. For decades, multilateral mechanisms like the Arctic Council have fostered stability through functional cooperation based on consensus. Trump's assertive stance towards Denmark severely undermines the trust other Arctic nations place in the U.S., potentially causing a reversion to great power competition rather than institutionalized cooperation. Such a shift would substantially weaken regional public governance capacity and the provision of public goods.

Secondly, these actions have profound implications for international law and the international order. By invoking "national security" to justify interference in an ally's territorial sovereignty, the U.S. sets a deeply detrimental precedent. This conduct violates the core principles of the UN Charter prohibiting the use of force against territorial integrity and signals to the international community – especially small and medium-sized states – that great powers may place their interests above international law. Given the U.S.'s veto power on the UN Security Council, the enforcement of rules is increasingly dictated by the balance of power rather than inherent fairness, supplanting the normative function of international law with the logic of power politics.

Thirdly, and perhaps most critically for the West, the U.S. alliance system has been significantly impacted. Coercion directed at the sovereignty of an ally erodes the foundational trust of the alliance, placing NATO at a risk of disintegration. Unlike previous U.S. actions, such as the invasion of Venezuela which could be framed around delegitimizing the Maduro government, coercion against Denmark –  a NATO member adhering to Western values –  violates the ethical and contractual core of alliance relations. This breach forces European countries to reevaluate the reliability of U.S. leadership. The perception of threats to sovereignty from within the alliance may accelerate Europe's pursuit of strategic autonomy and alternative security arrangements to reduce vulnerability to future coercion.

While the Greenland issue stands out for its direct challenge to sovereignty, it is part of a broader pattern of unilateralism over the past year. On the Ukraine issue, the administration bypassed allies to initiate direct ceasefire negotiations with Russia, later pressuring Ukraine and Europe to accept the terms – a flagrant disregard for their security concerns. Similarly, on economic issues, indiscriminate tariffs, including a 25-percent levy on steel and aluminum and reciprocal tariffs on the EU and UK, have intensified trade frictions and burdened European economies. In defense, Trump's ambiguity regarding collective security and demands for allies to raise defense spending to an unprecedented five percent of GDP have further strained the partnership.

Despite the strong backlash in Europe provoked by the administration's assertive rhetoric and actions regarding Greenland and other issues, a wholesale collapse of the transatlantic alliance in the short term remains improbable. European allies are more likely to acquiesce than break with Washington, primarily due to three factors.

First, the geopolitical dynamic vis-à-vis Russia acts as a decisive constraint. Amidst the protracted conflict in Ukraine and concerns over the European security architecture, a rupture with the U.S. is widely viewed in European capitals as creating a dangerous security deficit. Consequently, maintaining reliance on U.S. military capabilities is regarded as a pragmatic necessity to counterbalance Moscow's influence.

Second, European allies currently lack the material foundations for rapid strategic autonomy. Fiscal constraints from the Eurozone debt crisis, the refugee crisis and the pandemic make sustainable funding for massive military expansion difficult. Furthermore, Europe's long-standing reliance on the U.S. military-industrial complex has resulted in shortcomings in the autonomous development and production of military equipment. This lag in material capabilities impedes the swift realization of independence, even if political will exists.

Finally, the rightward shift within European politics and ideological resonance across the Atlantic may dampen the inclination to disengage. The Trump administration has actively cultivated ties with far-right forces in Europe, for whom Trump's anti-globalization and national-interest-first stance resonates. For governments led by such forces, like those in Italy and Hungary, the Greenland issue is unlikely to be a dealbreaker. As European politics drift rightward on issues of sovereignty and immigration, these governments may serve as crucial anchors for transatlantic ties, maintaining the alliance in the absence of direct threats to their own core interests.