Before rare earths and tariffs, Denmark quietly offered Greenland to America. What happened next still echoes in 2026.

The renewed push by the United States to assert control over Greenland has placed the Arctic territory at the center of an intensifying geopolitical contest. In early 2026, trade threats, mineral competition, and strategic calculations have replaced diplomacy as the primary levers of U.S. pressure.

President Donald Trump has reintroduced the idea of acquiring Greenland, framing it as a national security imperative. The proposal has already drawn condemnation from Copenhagen and Nuuk, but the administration has signaled it may escalate further, including the use of economic retaliation against NATO allies.

Amid this unfolding standoff, a largely forgotten episode from the early 20th century has returned to relevance. More than a century ago, Denmark quietly offered Greenland to the United States as part of a broader territorial exchange. The proposal was rejected, but it marked the first formal instance of Denmark seeking to divest the island.

A 1910 Proposal Buried by Diplomacy

In 1910, the U.S. ambassador to Denmark suggested a tripartite trade that involved Greenland, islands in the Philippines, and the German region of Schleswig-Holstein. Under the plan, the United States would cede certain Philippine territories to Denmark. Denmark would then pass those islands to Germany, which in turn would restore the northern German state of Schleswig-Holstein to Danish control.

The proposal was swiftly dismissed by U.S. officials. Historical analysis published in Fortune confirms that the U.S. government found the diplomatic maneuver too ambitious. No public negotiations followed, and the idea was shelved. It would take another 36 years before America formally offered to purchase Greenland.

That came in 1946, when the Truman administration extended an offer of $100 million for the island. As detailed in this Arctic Institute analysis, Greenland’s strategic value had risen sharply with the onset of the Cold War. The deal failed, but the United States retained military access to the island through the 1951 U.S.-Denmark defense agreement.

Rare Earth Minerals and Strategic Location Drive Modern Interest

Today, Greenland’s value is viewed primarily through the lens of rare earth resources, Arctic military logistics, and supply chain security. Greenland holds deposits of neodymium, dysprosium, terbium, and lithium, critical for both green energy technology and military-grade electronics. A 2026 report in Fortune notes that 25 out of 30 raw materials listed as essential by the EU are found in Greenland.

Tariffs and Threats Escalate Diplomatic Tensions

On January 17, 2026, President Trump announced tariffs targeting Denmark’s exports to the U.S., starting at 10 percent in February and rising to 25 percent by June unless the Danish government agrees to discuss a transfer of sovereignty over Greenland. The announcement, made via Truth Social, extended similar penalties to several European NATO allies including Germany, France, and Sweden, which had expressed support for Denmark’s position.

No formal negotiations are underway. Both the Danish government and Greenland’s leadership have reaffirmed that the island is not available for sale. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen reiterated the position on January 7, saying, “Greenland is not for sale”, and urging that all engagement respect Greenlandic self-rule and NATO coordination.

Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Egede has supported continued U.S. cooperation on economic and defense matters, stopping short of endorsing sovereignty talks. In a press conference covered by the New York Times, Egede stated, “We are going to work with the U.S. – yesterday, today and tomorrow,” underscoring Greenland’s desire for balanced diplomacy without conceding control.

Market Risks and Legal Precedents Raise Broader Concerns

The use of economic pressure to force territorial change has raised red flags among trade experts and global governance observers. A policy analysis by The Daily Economy criticized the administration’s logic, arguing that sovereign territory cannot be priced like a commercial asset. If Greenland’s mineral reserves are truly worth trillions, any sale at a fraction of that amount would lack rational basis under standard net present value models.

The article also cautioned that normalizing territorial claims through economic pressure could destabilize global investment environments, inflate sovereign risk premiums, and invite retaliatory measures from the European Union. Analysts warn that trade-based coercion, if left unchecked, might reshape how smaller states calculate defense and diplomatic alignments.

In parallel, historical context offered by LSE USAPP connects today’s ambitions to 19th-century U.S. expansionism, including Seward’s drive to annex Arctic and North Atlantic territories. While the geopolitical context has changed, the territorial logic persists.

About the author, Evelyn Hart

Evelyn holds a Master’s degree in Earth Sciences, with a focus on oceanography, climatology, and palaeontology. Her research has explored terrestrial and marine ecosystem responses to past global warming events. With over 10 years of experience, she has worked as a freelance editor and content creator. She writes for Indian Defence Review, covering topics related to climate, planetary science, and the long-term interplay between Earth’s history and contemporary environmental challenges. evelynhart@indiandefencereview.com