The US bombing of Venezuela and the capture of its president, Nicolás Maduro, have sparked renewed fears of an American takeover of Greenland. Supporters of Donald Trump’s Maga movement have eagerly turned their attention to the Danish territory following the attack in South America.
Shortly after the US military operation in Venezuela, right-wing podcaster Katie Miller—wife of Stephen Miller, a key Trump aide—posted a map on X showing Greenland covered by the American flag, with the caption: “SOON.”
This threat to annex the mineral-rich territory, which is part of NATO, quickly drew anger from Danes. Denmark’s ambassador to the US, Jesper Møller Sørensen, responded to Miller’s post with a “friendly reminder” of the strong defense ties between the two countries.
“We are close allies and should continue to work together as such. US security is also Greenland’s and Denmark’s security,” he said. “The Kingdom of Denmark and the United States work together to ensure security in the Arctic.”
He noted that Denmark has increased defense spending for 2025, committing $13.7 billion “that can be used in the Arctic and North Atlantic. Because we take our joint security seriously.” He added, “And yes, we expect full respect for the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark.”
Trump recently appointed Jeff Landry, the governor of Louisiana, as a special envoy to Greenland. Landry, a former state attorney general, thanked Trump for the role in December, calling it “an honour to serve you in this volunteer position to make Greenland a part of the US.”
On Saturday, Landry praised Trump’s forceful removal of Maduro. “Having served as a sheriff’s deputy and AG, I have seen the devastating effects of illegal drugs on American families. With over 100k opioid-related deaths annually, I am grateful to see a President finally take real action in the war on drugs,” he posted on X. “Thank you @realDonaldTrump for holding individuals like Maduro accountable.”
Since taking office a year ago, Trump has unsettled European allies with his interest in Greenland, which is seen as strategically important for defense and future mineral resources. It hosts the US’s northernmost military base at Pituffik, which Trump’s vice-president, JD Vance, visited in March.
Trump has not ruled out using military force to gain control of Greenland, especially as the US, China, and Russia compete for influence in the Arctic. This possibility has caused widespread concern and condemnation on the island itself.
“I don’t rule it out. I don’t say I’m going to do it, but I don’t rule out anything. No, not there. We need Greenland very badly,” Trump told NBC in May when asked about a potential takeover. “Greenland is a very small amount of people, which we’ll take care of, and we’ll cherish them, and all of that. But we need that for international security.”
In response to ongoing threats against Greenland, the Danish Defence Intelligence Service last month labeled the US a security risk, marking a sharp shift in transatlantic relations.
The prime ministers of Denmark and Greenland, Mette Frederiksen and Jens-Frederik Nielsen, stated: “We have said it very clearly before. Now we say it again. National borders and the sovereignty of states are rooted in international law … You cannot annex other countries.”
According to a January poll, most of Greenland’s 57,000 residents want independence from Denmark but have no desire to join the US. The territory has had the right to declare independence since 2009.
Jennifer Kavanagh, director of military analysis at the thinktank Defense Priorities, which advocates for restraint in US foreign policy, said she had long dismissed Trump’s threats toward Greenland. “Now I’m no longer so sure,” she added.”I’m not so sure,” she said. “It wouldn’t be that hard for the US to put a couple hundred or a couple thousand troops in Greenland, and it’s not clear to me who could do anything about it.” Agence France-Presse contributed to this report.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about the concerns linking US actions in Venezuela to a potential future interest in Greenland framed in a natural tone
BeginnerLevel Questions
1 What does the US action in Venezuela have to do with Greenland
The connection is about resources and strategic influence The US has imposed sanctions and taken actions in Venezuela largely over its oil reserves This has led some analysts to wonder if the US seeking longterm energy security and Arctic influence might one day pursue a more aggressive strategy to acquire resources in resourcerich Greenland
2 Why is Greenland suddenly in the news this way
Greenland is gaining attention because climate change is making its vast mineral and energy resources more accessible Its geographic location in the Arctic is also becoming strategically crucial for global shipping and defense The idea of a takeover entered modern discourse after a 2019 report that former President Trump had privately discussed the idea of purchasing the island
3 Can the US just take over Greenland
No not legally or through simple force Greenland is a selfgoverning territory of the Kingdom of Denmark Any change in its status would require the overwhelming consent of the Greenlandic people and the Danish government A hostile military takeover would be an act of war against a NATO ally and is considered highly improbable
4 What does Greenland have that other countries might want
Greenland is believed to hold some of the worlds largest deposits of rare earth elements as well as significant oil gas and mineral resources Its location also offers control over new Arctic shipping routes and military advantages
Advanced Analytical Questions
5 How does the Venezuela precedent apply to Greenland
The argument is that US actions in Venezuela demonstrate a willingness to use economic and political pressure to secure energy resources and influence the governance of a resourcerich nation Observers worry this same logic of resource nationalism could be applied to Greenland albeit through different means like intense diplomatic pressure investment deals or leveraging security agreements rather than sanctions
6 Isnt this just conspiracy theory
While a literal military takeover is widely dismissed the
