Trump’s Greenland Threat Tests NATO’s Foundation

Nato,Headquarters,In,Brussels,In,Brussels,,Belgium,On,April,3,

A new policy threatens the delicate balance of NATO, as President Trump insists the US might resort to force over Greenland, causing alarm among allies.

Story Highlights

Trump asserts NATO’s existence is tied solely to US involvement.
US threatens action over Greenland, risking NATO’s future.
Denmark warns US threats could dismantle the alliance.
European analysts express concerns over the erosion of Article 5.

Trump’s Stand on NATO and Greenland

In late 2025, President Donald Trump reiterated his stance that NATO’s deterrent value and existence are dependent on US participation. He emphasized this point by making aggressive claims over Greenland, a territory belonging to NATO ally Denmark. Trump questioned the reliability of NATO allies, suggesting the US might not receive the same defense commitment it offers, and highlighted that Russia and China have “zero fear of NATO without the United States.”

Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland involves strong rhetoric, claiming it is necessary for US national security and has not ruled out using force to gain control. This stance has led to significant unease among European allies, with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen warning that such US aggression could spell the end of NATO. The situation has prompted discussions about the alliance’s future and the potential breaking of Article 5, which guarantees collective defense.

Watch:

Background: NATO’s Structure and Challenges

NATO, established in 1949, is founded on the principle of collective defense, as stated in Article 5—an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. The US, as NATO’s largest military power, plays a crucial role in deterring threats, particularly from Russia. However, Trump’s threats over Greenland represent an unprecedented challenge, as his administration’s approach raises questions about the US’s commitment to these principles.

The Greenland issue is rooted in Trump’s first-term ambitions, where he floated the idea of purchasing the territory. Although Denmark rejected this, Trump’s insistence on US control over Greenland continues to cause friction. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte has been caught in the middle, attempting to keep the matter from escalating while European allies express their concerns over potential violations of international law.

Implications for NATO and Global Security

The rhetoric surrounding Greenland has short-term implications for NATO’s cohesion and trust among its members. European states are increasingly questioning the US’s commitment to Article 5, with some considering alternative security arrangements. Russia and China stand to benefit from any divisions within NATO, as they portray the alliance as weakened and divided.

In the long term, the credibility of NATO’s collective defense principle could be compromised if the US were to take aggressive action against Greenland. This situation could prompt European nations to pursue greater strategic autonomy, potentially undermining the alliance’s cohesion. The broader geopolitical balance could shift, benefiting adversaries such as Russia and China by weakening coordinated Western responses.