In a recent discussion on ABC’s This Week, Representative Michael McCaul, a Republican from Texas and former chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, issued a stern warning regarding any U.S. military attempt to take control of Greenland. He asserted that such action would constitute a de facto declaration of war against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), an alliance to which both the United States and Denmark, Greenland’s sovereign discoverer, belong.
McCaul emphasized the critical nature of NATO’s Article 5, which states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all. According to him, using force against Greenland would invert this principle and lead to a rupture within the alliance itself. "For him to militarily invade would turn Article Five of NATO on its very head, and in essence, put us at war with NATO itself," McCaul affirmed. He further cautioned that such a move could effectively dismantle NATO as it currently exists.
The representative highlighted that the United States currently enjoys comprehensive military access to Greenland under a longstanding agreement dating back to 1951. This treaty, signed after the conclusion of World War II, affords the U.S. extensive defense rights on the island alongside Denmark. McCaul maintained that these rights provide sufficient grounds for America's strategic and defense presence without resorting to aggressive measures. "The fact is, the president has full military access to Greenland to protect us from any threats," he noted.
Assessing the potential to increase military deployment on the island, McCaul stated that such expansion is feasible without necessitating an invasion. "If we want to put more military in there, we can. We don’t have to invade it," he said. On the financial front, while acknowledging past proposals by U.S. presidents contemplating the purchase of Greenland, he underscored a lack of willingness from either the Danish government or Greenlandic authorities to sell. "If he wants to buy it, that's fine," McCaul remarked, "But I don't see a willing seller right now." This perspective underscores his belief that diplomatic and treaty-based solutions remain the appropriate path forward.
Echoing concerns from the United States, European leaders publicly expressed their unified stance in defense of Greenland’s sovereignty. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen conveyed that she engaged in consultations with NATO officials and European heads of state, reinforcing Europe's commitment to safeguarding strategic economic and security interests linked to Greenland through firm solidarity. "Europe will protect its strategic economic and security interests with solidarity and resolve," von der Leyen stated.
French President Emmanuel Macron also vocalized his support for Danish authority over Greenland, highlighting France's adherence to principles of national sovereignty and the United Nations Charter as key guidelines governing France’s actions. Macron referenced France’s participation in Danish military exercises in Greenland aimed at preserving Arctic security. Moreover, he condemned tactics involving intimidation and economic threats, including tariffs, and reaffirmed that Europe intends to respond collaboratively to uphold the island’s sovereignty.
Domestically, reaction to President Trump’s related tariff implementations against Denmark and other European partners has been critical among some Republican lawmakers. Senators articulated concern that such tariffs risk fracturing NATO cohesion and may inadvertently advantage geopolitical rivals such as Russia and China. For instance, Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina described the tariffs as "bad," linking them to positive gains for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska labeled these tariffs as "punitive" and advocated for Congress to reassert control over tariff legislation. These statements indicate an apprehensive view within parts of the U.S. political spectrum about the potential fallout of tariff-based leverage in the Greenland matter.
President Trump has intensified his campaign for American control over Greenland, suggesting the possibility of leveraging tariffs as a means to coerce opposition from countries resistant to the idea. In response, European Union legislators have threatened to impede approval of a significant EU-U.S. trade deal, citing the Greenland issue as a key point of contention. The European People's Party went further by withdrawing support for the trade agreement and calling for a suspension of plans to reduce U.S. tariffs, intensifying diplomatic strains connected to the dispute over Greenland.
Collectively, these developments illustrate the complex geopolitical, economic, and military dynamics surrounding discussions of Greenland's future, reflecting a confluence of alliance commitments, international diplomacy, and domestic political maneuvering.