Cover Image Source: Getty Images
Recent discussions surrounding US President Donald Trump’s interest in acquiring Greenland — and even hinting at territorial ambitions regarding Canada — have reignited debates about Arctic geopolitics. While such proposals may seem far-fetched, they reflect deeper strategic concerns, particularly regarding control over the Northwest Passage, Arctic resources and competition with China. Rather than viewing these statements as isolated rhetoric, it is crucial to analyse their implications within the broader geopolitical landscape.
Why Greenland and Canada?
Trump’s interest in Greenland first gained public attention in 2019 when reports surfaced that he had inquired about purchasing the island from Denmark. Though the idea was swiftly dismissed by Danish officials, it underscored longstanding US strategic interests in the Arctic. Greenland’s vast untapped natural resources and its position between North America and Europe make it a valuable geopolitical asset.
If the US were to gain territorial control over Greenland or parts of Canada, it would significantly enhance American influence over Arctic shipping and energy exploration, countering both Russian and Chinese presence in the region.
Beyond Greenland, Trump’s more recent comments alluding to Canada as a potential US acquisition have drawn attention. While widely regarded as political grandstanding, such rhetoric highlights US ambitions to strengthen its influence over Arctic navigation — particularly the Northwest Passage. As climate change accelerates ice melt, this passage is becoming increasingly viable as a shipping route, offering a shorter alternative between Asia and Europe compared to the Suez or Panama Canals. The US has long challenged Canada’s claim that the Northwest Passage constitutes internal waters, arguing instead that it should be an international strait.
If the US were to gain territorial control over Greenland or parts of Canada, it would significantly enhance American influence over Arctic shipping and energy exploration, countering both Russian and Chinese presence in the region. However, such an endeavour would face substantial legal, political and diplomatic challenges, particularly from Canada and Denmark.
Legal and political barriers
From a legal standpoint, any US attempt to acquire Greenland or Canadian territory would need to comply with both international and constitutional law.
Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, exercises self-governance over most affairs except for defence and foreign policy. Any US acquisition would require consent from both Denmark and the Greenlandic people, who have the right to self-determination under the United Nations Charter. A territorial transfer would necessitate a democratic process reflecting the will of Greenland’s inhabitants.
The US has historically expanded through land purchases and treaties, such as the acquisition of Alaska from Russia in 1867 and the US Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917.
The US has historically expanded through land purchases and treaties, such as the acquisition of Alaska from Russia in 1867 and the US Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917. Under the US constitution, the president has the authority to negotiate treaties, including land acquisitions, but such treaties require Senate approval by a two-thirds majority. Additionally, any territorial acquisition would need to align with international legal principles, particularly the prohibition on forced annexation.
Acquiring Canadian territory would present even greater legal challenges. As a sovereign nation, Canada would have to consent to any territorial changes, and international law explicitly prohibits territorial acquisition by force. Any attempt by the US to claim parts of Canada would likely face firm resistance from the Canadian government and its citizens. Furthermore, such a move would severely strain US-Canada relations, which have long been based on mutual cooperation rather than territorial disputes.
China, Russia and the shifting Arctic power balance
China’s growing interest in the Arctic has added another layer of complexity to regional geopolitics. Through its Polar Silk Road initiative, a key component of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), China seeks to expand its economic and strategic footprint in the Arctic. Chinese investments in Greenland’s mining sector, infrastructure projects and diplomatic engagements with Arctic states have raised concerns in Washington about Beijing’s long-term intentions.
Beyond Greenland and the broader Nordic region, China has deepened its Arctic partnership with Russia, particularly in the wake of Western sanctions imposed on Moscow following the Ukraine crisis. Russia, heavily reliant on Arctic resources for economic growth, has increasingly turned to China for investment and technological support—especially in the energy sector.
This could also weaken China-Russia cooperation by reducing Beijing’s alternative trade and resource access points in the region.
China holds substantial stakes in key Russian Arctic projects, such as Yamal LNG and Arctic LNG 2, reflecting its deepening role in regional energy development. Additionally, Beijing has shown interest in utilising the Northern Sea Route (NSR) — a shipping route along Russia’s Arctic coast — as an alternative to traditional maritime pathways, aligning its interests with Moscow’s broader ambition to dominate Arctic trade.
From a US perspective, greater territorial control in the Arctic — whether through Greenland or Canada — would serve as a strategic countermeasure to both China’s growing presence and Russia’s regional dominance. If the US were to assert control over key Arctic territories, it could restrict China’s access to critical resources and shipping lanes, limiting its ability to integrate further into Arctic governance structures. This could also weaken China-Russia cooperation by reducing Beijing’s alternative trade and resource access points in the region.
In this context, Trump’s rhetoric on territorial expansion could be seen as part of a broader strategy to preemptively curb China’s Arctic ambitions while simultaneously challenging Russia’s influence.
US Arctic strategy: expansion vs alliance building
Trump’s rhetoric, whether serious or not, signals a more assertive US posture in the Arctic. In a recent speech, US President Donald Trump announced plans to order 40 large icebreakers for the US Coast Guard, aiming to enhance the nation’s Arctic capabilities. However, pursuing territorial expansion could strain relations with key allies. Canada, a NATO member and a crucial US partner, would strongly oppose any perceived challenge to its sovereignty. Denmark, which oversees Greenland’s foreign policy and defense, would also resist any attempt to alter the region’s political status.
Rather than pursuing unilateral territorial expansion, Washington may find that strengthening alliances and fostering cooperative Arctic policies would be a more effective strategy for securing its long-term interests. However, Trump’s historical skepticism toward multilateralism and alliance-building raises questions about whether his approach would serve this purpose or further isolate the US in Arctic diplomacy.
Could Trump’s vision materialise?
While Trump’s rhetoric on acquiring Greenland or asserting control over Canadian territory has sparked debate, the likelihood of such efforts materialising remains low.
A strategy focused on diplomatic engagement and multilateral cooperation may prove more viable than unilateral territorial ambitions.
Beyond legal constraints, such proposals would have significant geopolitical consequences. A US bid for territorial expansion could strain relations with key allies, potentially pushing Canada to strengthen its partnerships with Europe or deepen its focus on regional cooperation. Meanwhile, at the same time, Russia and China could seize this opportunity to expand their own influence in the Arctic, adding further complexity to the region’s strategic landscape.
Domestically, such an initiative would likely face resistance from Congress, as well as from policymakers advocating for a more measured and cooperative approach to Arctic affairs. A strategy focused on diplomatic engagement and multilateral cooperation may prove more viable than unilateral territorial ambitions.
That said, Trump’s remarks should not be dismissed entirely as political rhetoric. They reflect deeper US concerns about Arctic dominance, the strategic significance of the Northwest Passage, and countering China’s growing influence in the region. While direct territorial acquisitions remain highly improbable, the broader geopolitical competition in the Arctic is very real and will continue to shape global power dynamics.
This article was originally published on the website of Think China on February 10, 2025.
The Institute for China-America Studies is an independent nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to strengthening the understanding of U.S.-China relations through expert analysis and practical policy solutions.
1919 M St. NW Suite 310,
Washington, DC 20036
icas@chinaus-icas.org
(202) 968-0595
© 2025 INSTITUTE FOR CHINA-AMERICA STUDIES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Trump’s Impact on Research Cooperation