Looking at headlines around the world, it once seemed like United States President Donald Trump’s annexation of Greenland was imminent. Buoyed by the success of his military operation to oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Trump ratcheted up his rhetoric and threatened tariffs on any nation that opposed him. Adding insult to injury, he openly mocked European leaders by posting their private messages and sharing an AI-generated image of himself raising the American flag over Greenland.
However, behind these headlines, a different story has emerged that has likely forced Trump to back down on using military force against Greenland and to drop threatened tariffs against Europe. Trump’s military threats had toxic polling numbers with the American public, and his Republican allies openly threatened to revolt. European countries are sending reinforcements to Greenland, hiking the costs of any potential invasion. Europeans also began contemplating what economic retaliation might look like.
Trump’s Options and Public Sentiment
Far from being inevitable, Trump’s Greenland gambit is now on shaky ground. Trump has three options to take control of Greenland: diplomacy, money, and military force. The latest diplomatic talks collapsed as Greenland and Denmark’s foreign ministers left the White House in “fundamental disagreement” over the future of the territory.
Simply buying the territory is a non-starter. Greenlanders have already said the territory is not for sale, and the U.S. Congress is unwilling to foot the bill. That leaves military force, the worst possible option. It’s difficult to convey just how stunningly unpopular this option is with Americans. A recent Ipsos poll found that just four percent of Americans believe using military force to take Greenland is a good idea.
To put that in perspective, here are some policies that are more popular: Billionaires should pay less tax (five percent), pardoning convicted drug trafficker and Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez (13 percent), government book bans (14 percent), and stopping the release of all the Jeffrey Epstein files (seven percent).
Sensing this unpopularity, Trump has already begun to walk back his military threats. Using his platform at Davos, he claimed, “I don’t have to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.” He also said he and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte have “formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland.”
Political and Military Defections
The danger of defections within Trump’s political coalition is increasingly palpable. The Republican House majority has shrunk to a razor-thin margin, and Republicans are already signaling a loud break with Trump over Greenland. Nebraska congressman Don Bacon recently told USA Today, “There’s so many Republicans mad about this … If he went through with the threats, I think it would be the end of his presidency.”
The situation in the Senate looks even worse. Multiple Republican senators have pledged to oppose any annexation, with Thom Tillis and Lisa Murkowski visiting Copenhagen to reassure the Danish government. With enough defections, U.S. Congress could sharply curtail Trump’s plans and force a humiliating climb-down.
There’s yet another danger of defection. Senior military officers can resign, retire, or object to the legality of orders to attack America’s NATO allies. Just last year, Adm. Alvin Holsey, the leader of U.S. Southern Command, abruptly retired less than a year into what is typically a multi-year posting. Holsey’s departure came amid reports that he was questioning the legality of U.S. boat strikes in the Caribbean. Americans still have a high level of confidence in the military, so when senior officers suddenly leave, it can set off alarm bells.
European Response and Economic Consequences
In recent days, Denmark and its European allies have rushed to send military reinforcements to Greenland. These forces, however, would have no hope of defeating a committed American invasion. So why are they there? In strategic studies, this is called a “tripwire force.” The reasoning is that any attack on this force will create strong pressure at home for governments to respond. If Danes and Swedes — and other Europeans for that matter — saw their soldiers being captured or killed, it would force their governments to escalate the conflict and retaliate against the United States.
The Trump administration would like to seize Greenland, face no European forces, and suffer no consequences. But the entire point of a tripwire force is to deny easy wins and to signal that any attack would be met with costly escalation. It creates a price to invading Greenland for an administration that rarely wants to pay for anything.
Amid the Trump administration’s economic and sovereignty threats, people are forced to grapple with what comes next. European governments are already quietly debating retaliation, including diplomatic, military, and economic responses. Chief among these is the European Union’s Anti-Coercion Instrument, colloquially known as the “trade bazooka,” that could significantly curb America’s access to the EU market.
In 2024, the U.S. exported almost US$665 billion in goods and services to the EU. It’s one of the largest export markets for the U.S., fueling thousands of jobs and businesses.
But for ordinary Europeans, a different B-word will come to mind: boycott. Some Europeans began boycotting U.S. goods last year amid Trump’s trade threats — but never to the same level as Canadians. That could quickly change if the U.S. engages in a stunning betrayal of its European allies. Fresh anger and outrage could see Europeans follow Canada’s lead.
Future Prospects and Historical Parallels
None of this will stop the Trump administration from trying. Trump’s own words — that there is “no going back” on his plans for Greenland — ensure he’s backed himself into a corner. The more likely scenario seems to be starting to play out — Trump will try and then fail. His threats to annex Greenland will likely be remembered next to “90 trade deals in 90 days” and “repeal and replace” in the pantheon of failed Trump policies.
The tragedy here is not simply a Trump administration with desires that consistently exceed its grasp. It’s that the stain of betraying America’s closest allies will linger long after this administration is gone.
