When President Donald Trump says the United States will secure Greenland "the easy way or the hard way," the remark is deliberately provocative. Yet behind the blunt phrasing lies a far narrower set of realistic options than the rhetoric suggests. Trump argues that without United States "ownership," Russia or China would move to fill the vacuum. The White House maintains that existing defence agreements with Denmark are insufficient, even though the United States already operates freely from Pituffik Space Base and can deploy additional forces there at will. Still, in light of Trump's recent comments and ambitions, one key question remains: How is Trump most likely to pursue control over Greenland?
1. Why military force is unlikely
As most experts argue, a United States military takeover of Greenland would be legally indefensible, strategically reckless and politically catastrophic (even in light of recent events in Venezuela). It would mean attacking a NATO ally, detonating the alliance that underpins United States power in Europe, and handing Moscow and Beijing a propaganda victory of historic proportions. Even within Trump's own administration, such a move would face resistance from the Pentagon and Congress. Arctic warfare is complex, expensive and unnecessary when the United States already dominates the island militarily. There is no hostile force to dislodge, no urgent threat requiring boots on the ground. In short, the "hard way" makes little strategic sense, beyond shock value.
2. Buying Greenland: Headline-grabbing, legally blocked
The idea of purchasing Greenland has the advantage of simplicity, and precedent. The United States has bought territory before, including Alaska. But in this case, the legal and political barriers are far greater. Greenland is not Denmark's property to sell. Under the 2009 Self-Government Act, Greenlanders alone can decide their future, and while support for independence is strong, support for joining the United States is not. Any purchase would require independence first, followed by years of negotiations and a referendum, far beyond Trump's political timetable. The proposal persists less because it is viable than because it fits Trump's worldview, treating territory as a transactional asset. But as policy, it is largely symbolic.
3. The pressure strategy: Where power actually lies
The most plausible scenario is already unfolding. Trump is applying sustained political, economic and rhetorical pressure on both Copenhagen and Nuuk, aiming to extract concessions without changing borders. This includes:
Demanding expanded United States military access, beyond what is already permitted.
Pushing for exclusive United States involvement in Greenland's mineral sector, particularly rare earths.
Forcing stricter limits on Chinese and Russian investment, aligning Greenland more closely with United States strategic priorities.
Encouraging Greenlandic leaders to negotiate directly with Washington, sidelining Denmark.
This approach allows Trump to claim decisive action while avoiding the legal consequences of annexation. It mirrors tactics used before: apply maximal pressure, threaten escalation, then declare victory once concessions are secured. In effect, Greenland would remain Danish on paper, but more American in practice.
Why this works politically for Trump
This strategy offers Trump several advantages:
He can argue he has "secured" Greenland without firing a shot.
He avoids a direct NATO rupture while still challenging allied norms.
He presents the outcome domestically as strength, not compromise.
He accelerates Greenland's drift away from Denmark, weakening Copenhagen's leverage.
For Denmark, the dilemma is acute. Resisting United States demands risks a diplomatic breakdown with its most important ally. Complying too much risks hollowing out sovereignty and pushing Greenland further toward independence, or eventual alignment with Washington. Ultimately, Greenland is not for sale, not for taking, and not for surrender. But under relentless pressure, it may be reshaped, quietly, incrementally, into something far closer to what Trump wants than what Denmark ever intended. As for the long-term outcome, only time will tell. But when it comes to how Trump is most likely to pursue control over Greenland, these are the options currently on the table.