Has the US Really Decided to Go to War with Denmark?

In the volatile arena of global politics, few scenarios capture attention like the prospect of conflict between NATO allies. The ongoing US push for control over Greenland—a Danish territory rich in strategic value—has sparked intense debate, particularly under the second Trump administration. This article reexamines the hypothetical dynamics of a potential US-Denmark confrontation, with a sharpened focus on whether President Trump has committed to military action.

The Escalating US-Denmark Standoff: Greenland as the Flashpoint

Greenland’s vast ice-covered expanse holds untapped minerals, rare earth elements, and pivotal Arctic routes, making it a prize in great-power competition. The US, under Trump, has revived interest in acquiring the island, framing it as essential for countering Russian and Chinese influence in the region. Tensions trace back to earlier proposals for purchase, dismissed by Denmark as absurd. Now, in early 2026, the rhetoric has intensified, blending diplomatic overtures with veiled threats.

This context sets the stage for dissecting Trump’s stance on war. While no outright declaration exists, the administration’s actions suggest a calculated escalation short of full conflict—yet with military options lingering in the background.

Has Trump Decided to Go to War with Denmark?

Central to this analysis is the question: Has President Trump resolved to wage war against Denmark? As of January 8, 2026, the answer remains no—he has not formally decided on or initiated armed conflict. However, the White House’s statements and tactics indicate a serious pursuit of Greenland “one way or another,” without excluding force.

Trump has “actively discussed” acquiring the territory with his national security team, emphasizing its role in deterring adversaries. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt affirmed that diplomacy is the “first option,” but “all options are always on the table,” explicitly not ruling out military intervention. This echoes broader threats, including claims of US rights to the island and appointments of envoys deemed unacceptable by Copenhagen.

The administration’s approach has been characterized as hybrid warfare, involving influence operations to sow discord and promote secession from Denmark. Tactics include social media campaigns, infiltration by Trump-linked individuals, and even symbolic gestures like distributing US dollars in Greenland’s capital. Timeline highlights: In 2025, US intelligence escalated efforts, with Vice President JD Vance’s uninvited visit and the firing of a base commander seen as punitive. By December 2025, threats resumed, culminating in January 2026 statements post-Venezuela actions, where officials like Stephen Miller asserted takeover rights.

Denmark’s response has been resolute. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warned that any US attack on Greenland would dismantle NATO, eroding post-World War II security structures. European allies echo this, condemning the pressure and affirming sovereignty. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s upcoming meeting with Danish leaders signals ongoing talks, but with no retreat from Trump’s goals.

Public sentiment in Greenland leans heavily against US integration, with polls showing minimal support. Thus, while Trump pushes aggressively, a war decision appears deferred, favoring coercion over invasion—for now. This hybrid strategy allows plausible deniability, but risks miscalculation.

Why Turkey Might Back the US in This Scenario:

Amid these tensions, Turkey’s position becomes intriguing. As a NATO heavyweight, Ankara could tilt toward the US due to intertwined interests:

• Strategic Bargaining with Europe: Turkey’s frictions with the EU—over maritime rights and sanctions—could make supporting the US a leverage play. Denmark’s EU alignment might make it a secondary concern, allowing Turkey to negotiate better terms on regional issues.
• US-Turkey Security Bonds: Despite past rifts, shared bases and arms deals bind the duo. Backing Washington could yield F-35 access or economic relief, vital amid Turkey’s domestic challenges.
• Balancing Russian Threats: With Arctic routes in play, Turkey might see US dominance as a check on Moscow, aligning with its Black Sea priorities.
• Internal Optics: Nationalist gains from partnering with a superpower could strengthen leadership narratives.

In a Greenland-focused clash, Turkey’s support would likely prioritize bilateral gains, especially if hybrid tactics minimize direct involvement.

Without the US and Turkey, NATO’s Vulnerability

A US-Denmark rift, amplified by Trump’s Greenland pursuit, underscores NATO’s reliance on its pillars. Excluding the US and Turkey would hobble the alliance:

• Resource Drain: US funding (70% of total) and Turkish manpower (largest European army) are foundational. Their absence slashes budgets and troops.
• Capability Gaps: No US carriers or Turkish drones means weakened air and asymmetric warfare.
• Unity Fractures: Leadership voids could spark divisions, with remaining members like France and Germany struggling to coordinate.

Frederiksen’s warning that an attack ends NATO highlights this fragility—hybrid or overt actions could trigger dissolution.

Many countries avoid provoking the US, given its military prowess:

• China: Focuses on economic rivalry, evading direct clashes.
• Russia: Uses proxies, wary of US tech edges.
• Iran: Relies on indirect actions to dodge sanctions.
• North Korea: Provokes but avoids thresholds for invasion.
• Others like Venezuela: Criticize but refrain from escalation, fearing interventions.

In the Greenland context, even allies like the UK and Nordic states condemn but prepare contingencies, underscoring global caution.

Trump’s Greenland ambitions, while not yet a war declaration, embody a high-stakes gamble that could redefine alliances. Turkey’s potential US tilt and NATO’s weakened state amplify risks, urging diplomatic de-escalation. As events unfold, monitoring these shifts is key to grasping emerging power balances.