Alarm grows as U.S. rhetoric hardens
European governments are no longer dismissing Donald Trump’s repeated threats to seize Greenland. What once sounded like provocation is now being treated as a serious strategic risk, forcing policymakers across Europe to urgently consider how to respond.
Diplomats describe a growing sense of shock and uncertainty. Trump has made clear that acquiring Greenland is a priority for U.S. security, and senior officials have openly suggested that military force cannot be ruled out if negotiations fail. For European leaders, the question is no longer whether the threat is real, but how to stop it.
Option one: negotiate a face-saving compromise
One path under discussion is a negotiated settlement that allows Trump to claim a political victory while preserving Danish and Greenlandic sovereignty. Supporters of this approach argue that increased NATO activity in the Arctic, higher European defense spending, and a stronger allied presence around Greenland could satisfy U.S. security concerns.
Some officials believe expanded military exercises, permanent troop rotations, and new Arctic-focused security initiatives could defuse tensions by demonstrating that Greenland is already protected without U.S. ownership.
Option two: outspend Washington
Another strategy focuses on Greenland itself. Trump has backed the island’s independence movement, promising massive U.S. investment if it breaks away from Denmark. In response, Denmark and the EU are considering dramatically increasing financial support.
Plans under discussion include expanded funding for infrastructure, healthcare, education, and green energy, along with support for developing Greenland’s mineral sector. The goal is to convince Greenlanders that long-term prosperity is better secured through Europe than through U.S. control.
Option three: economic retaliation
European leaders are also weighing economic pressure. The EU has the ability to retaliate against U.S. trade actions using its anti-coercion tools, targeting key American exports if Washington escalates its threats.
This option carries risks. Europe would need to convince Trump that it is prepared to follow through, something many fear may be difficult given past hesitations. Still, trade leverage remains one of the bloc’s strongest non-military instruments.
Option four: physical deterrence
The most extreme scenario involves deploying European forces to Greenland at Denmark’s request. While no one believes European troops could stop a U.S. invasion outright, their presence could raise the political and moral cost of any military action.
Such a move would be unprecedented within NATO and carries the risk of direct confrontation between allies. Yet some officials argue that even a limited deployment could act as a deterrent by forcing Washington to reconsider the consequences.
An uncertain path forward
European officials privately admit there is no clear playbook for confronting a potential U.S. grab for Greenland. The situation exposes deep vulnerabilities in Europe’s security architecture and its reliance on American restraint.
For now, Europe is racing to assemble a mix of diplomacy, money, pressure, and deterrence in the hope of stopping a crisis that could fundamentally reshape transatlantic relations.