In the wake of President Donald Trump’s bold capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in early 2026, global eyes are turning northward to the icy expanses of Greenland. With Trump declaring the U.S. will “run” Venezuela to exploit its oil reserves, speculation is rife: Will he apply the same aggressive strategy to Greenland, a resource-rich Arctic territory he’s long coveted? This move, if pursued, could reshape international relations, pitting U.S. ambitions against Danish sovereignty and global norms.
Trump’s Renewed Push for Greenland:
Donald Trump’s interest in Greenland isn’t new—it dates back to his first term when, in 2019, he floated the idea of purchasing the world’s largest island from Denmark, calling it a “large real estate deal” for national security. Dismissed as eccentric at the time, the proposal strained U.S.-Denmark relations, with Danish officials labeling it “absurd.” Fast-forward to December 2025, and Trump has reignited the controversy by appointing Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as a special envoy to Greenland, emphasizing the island’s strategic importance amid melting Arctic ice and rising great-power competition.
Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, boasts vast untapped reserves of rare earth minerals crucial for electric vehicles, renewable energy, and defense tech—resources currently dominated by China. As climate change opens new shipping routes like the Northwest Passage, control over Greenland could secure U.S. dominance in Arctic trade and military positioning against Russia. Recent social media buzz, including posts speculating on a 2026 invasion, underscores the growing anxiety: “Trump surprise 2026 is ?? Bombing Venezuela but next Trump surprise is ??? GREENLAND.” Another user quipped about infighting in Trump’s team over whether to target Canada or Greenland next.
This escalation comes hot on the heels of the Venezuela operation, where U.S. forces struck drug routes and apprehended Maduro, framing it as a fight against narco-terrorism. Trump’s vow to harness Venezuelan oil mirrors potential motivations for Greenland: resource extraction under direct U.S. oversight.
Will Trump Run Greenland Like Venezuela? Parallels and Risks
The Venezuela precedent—swift military action followed by U.S. administration of key assets—raises a chilling question: Could Trump “run” Greenland similarly? In Venezuela, Trump justified the intervention as dismantling a “narco-regime,” promising to stabilize the country while tapping its oil for American benefit. Applied to Greenland, this could mean bypassing negotiations with Denmark for a forced acquisition, citing “national security” amid Arctic rivalries.
Experts warn of echoes from history. Trump’s 2025 statements questioned Denmark’s “legal right” to Greenland, hinting at coercive tactics. Unlike Venezuela’s isolated regime, however, Greenland enjoys strong ties to NATO (via Denmark), making a military grab riskier. Social commentary on X highlights the speculation: “If Venezuela was about removing a threat, Greenland is about securing an asset,” with users linking it to Trump’s “premonition” from 2019.
Yet, feasibility is low. Polls show 69% of Americans oppose taking Greenland by force, and 85% of Greenlanders reject U.S. integration. International law, post-World War II, deems territorial acquisition by force illegal, as seen in critiques of potential U.S. moves. A “Venezuela-style” operation might involve special forces or economic pressure, but it could fracture alliances and invite backlash from Europe and beyond.
Which Countries Could Stop Trump from Taking Over Greenland?
A U.S. bid for Greenland wouldn’t go unchallenged. Here’s a breakdown of key players who could thwart such ambitions:
- Denmark: As Greenland’s sovereign overseer, Denmark has firmly rejected Trump’s overtures. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen declared in early 2026 that Denmark will “stand firm,” backed by military presence and NATO commitments. Recent U.S. approval for Denmark to buy P-8A aircraft underscores ongoing alliances, but tensions could strain them.
- Greenland Itself: With a population favoring independence from Denmark but opposing U.S. control, local resistance could manifest through elections and protests. A 2025 poll showed overwhelming anti-U.S. sentiment, and Greenland’s government has won mandates centered on sovereignty.
- NATO Allies (e.g., Canada, Norway): As Arctic nations, they share interests in stability. Canada, already wary of Trump’s border rhetoric, could rally opposition, viewing a takeover as a threat to regional norms.
- European Union: The EU, with Denmark as a member, could impose sanctions or diplomatic isolation, framing it as a violation of international law.
- Russia and China: Ironically, these rivals might exploit the chaos. Russia, with Arctic claims, could militarize in response, while China—invested in Greenland’s minerals—might support Denmark to counter U.S. expansion. X users speculate on their reactions: “China & Russia saying what Venezuela bombing.”
Ultimately, international law and alliances form the strongest barriers, potentially deterring Trump through diplomacy rather than force.
A List of US Ambitions
The U.S. has a long history of territorial expansion, driven by Manifest Destiny, economic interests, and strategic needs. Below is a curated list of notable ambitions, drawn from key acquisitions and attempts, presented in a chronological table for clarity. This illustrates patterns seen in Venezuela and potential Greenland moves.
| Year | Location | Description | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1803 | Louisiana Territory (from France) | Doubled U.S. size; purchased for $15 million amid European wars. | Successful acquisition. |
| 1819 | Florida (from Spain) | Acquired via treaty after U.S. incursions; included parts of Alabama and Mississippi. | Integrated as states/territories. |
| 1845 | Texas (annexation from Mexico) | Annexed after independence; sparked Mexican-American War. | Became a state. |
| 1846 | Oregon Territory (from Britain) | Settled via treaty; divided along 49th parallel. | Formed multiple states. |
| 1848 | Mexican Cession (from Mexico) | Gained California, Nevada, Utah, etc., post-war; paid $15 million. | Core of Southwest U.S. |
| 1867 | Alaska (from Russia) | Purchased for $7.2 million; dubbed “Seward’s Folly” initially. | Became a state in 1959. |
| 1898 | Hawaii (annexation) | Overthrew monarchy; annexed for Pacific strategy. | Statehood in 1959. |
| 1898 | Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico (from Spain) | Spanish-American War spoils; fueled overseas empire. | Philippines independent 1946; others remain territories. |
| 1903-1979 | Panama Canal Zone (from Panama/Colombia) | Built canal; controlled zone until treaty return. | Returned to Panama. |
| 1917 | U.S. Virgin Islands (from Denmark) | Purchased for $25 million for Caribbean defense. | Unincorporated territory. |
| 1947-Present | American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands | Post-WWII Pacific holdings; strategic bases. | Ongoing territories. |
| 2019-2026 | Greenland (from Denmark) | Proposed purchase; renewed with envoy in 2025. | Ongoing speculation; no acquisition. |
This list highlights America’s shift from continental expansion to overseas imperialism, often blending purchase, war, and diplomacy. Modern ambitions, like Greenland, reflect resource and security drives amid climate change.
A New Era of U.S. Assertiveness?
Trump’s Venezuela success could embolden further moves, but Greenland poses unique hurdles. As one X post warns, “Trump is speeding up this timeline… War with India or Taiwan in 2026 is the question now.” The world watches: Will diplomacy prevail, or will 2026 see another shock? This evolving saga underscores the tension between U.S. power and global order.
