Greenland by force? Not proven “at any price.” But in 2025–2026, Trump and his White House refused to rule out using the military—triggering real alarm in Europe. And if the U.S. ever tried it, it wouldn’t just be a spat; it could blow up NATO.
What follows is the story behind the headline, the parts that stand up, the parts that don’t, and what Europe could actually do.
Headline: Greenland, Guns, and the End of NATO? What’s Real—and What Europe Can Do
The most important correction
- The claim: “Trump will take Greenland at any price, if necessary with military force.”
- What we can verify: In 2025–2026, Trump repeatedly declined to rule out force, and a White House statement said “utilizing the US military is always an option.” That supports the “if necessary with military force” line. But “at any price” is hyperbole; there’s no public quote of Trump saying that.
- Supported: The refusal to rule out force The Guardian
- Tempered: Senior Republicans and the Secretary of State emphasized a preference for negotiation, not force Washington Post
The claim that raises the stakes
- “This would mean NATO country USA invading NATO country Denmark.” Mostly accurate if force were used. Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, which is a NATO member. Any attack on Greenland would be force against a NATO ally’s territory—an unprecedented intra‑NATO crisis.
- Verified: Greenland falls under NATO via Denmark Euronews
Why it would be a transatlantic earthquake
- European officials have warned that a U.S. military move on Greenland could mean “the end of NATO.” That’s not tabloid rhetoric; it comes from current European leaders and commissioners. It also raises an EU question: could Europe invoke its own mutual‑assistance clause (Article 42(7) TEU) for Greenland? Many legal analysts say yes, though debate continues.
- Verified: “End of NATO” warnings and EU clause debate Reuters
What changed since 2019
- Back then, Trump floated buying Greenland. Denmark and Greenland said no, Trump canceled a visit, and that was that—no threats of force on the record.
- Verified: 2019 purchase idea, no force threats The Guardian
- Today’s situation is different: public statements in 2025–2026 left the door open to force, even as top Republicans publicly played it down.
- Verified: Mixed U.S. signals The Guardian, Washington Post
The ground truth in Greenland
- Greenland is not a separate NATO member. It is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Defense and foreign policy remain with Copenhagen.
- The U.S. already operates the Pituffik (Thule) Air Base there under longstanding agreements.
- Verified: Status and basing Wikipedia overview
- Greenland and Denmark have categorically rejected any “takeover,” saying Greenland’s defense belongs inside the NATO framework. Several European governments backed that stance publicly.
- Verified: Joint rejection and NATO framing Reuters
So, how could Europe “hurt” Trump—or, more precisely, respond? If Washington ever tried to seize Greenland by force, Europe’s leverage wouldn’t be about personal pain; it would be about collective defense and political isolation.
Likely tools (with what’s verified and what remains debated):
- NATO response
- EU mutual assistance
- Verified debate: The EU’s mutual‑assistance clause (Article 42(7) TEU) could plausibly be invoked to support Denmark/Greenland; legal scholars differ on its exact application to Greenland’s special status, but many say it’s viable. Reuters
- Diplomatic isolation and coordination
- Verified trajectory: European capitals have already lined up behind Denmark/Greenland’s NATO‑framed defense position. In a force scenario, expect expulsions, suspensions, and deep freezes in transatlantic forums—steps European officials explicitly link to a potential “end of NATO.” Reuters
- Economic/defense measures
- Needs more investigation: Specific EU sanctions, curbs on defense co‑production, or base access limits are widely discussed by analysts, but we don’t yet have formal EU or NATO plans on the record. Treat these as plausible scenarios, not confirmed policy.
What the original gets right—and wrong
- Right: Force against Greenland would pit the U.S. against a NATO ally’s territory and risk an “ice age” in transatlantic relations. That matches current warnings from Europe.
- Wrong or overstated: “At any price” is not a documented quote. In 2019, there were no threats of force; presenting it as such back then would mislead. In 2025–2026, the possibility of force exists in statements, but senior U.S. officials have simultaneously stressed negotiation.
What we still don’t know
- Whether the White House would actually authorize force, or whether “always an option” remains rhetorical pressure.
- How NATO would practically handle an intra‑alliance attack—there’s no precedent.
- Which exact EU tools would be mobilized first: 42(7) TEU, sanctions, or a coordinated diplomatic rupture.
How we checked
- Compared sensational claims to on‑the‑record statements by Trump and the White House (refusal to rule out force) and to public pushback from senior Republicans and the Secretary of State.
- Verified Greenland’s legal status within the Kingdom of Denmark and its NATO coverage.
- Tracked European officials’ warnings and Greenland/Denmark’s unified position.
Key sources
- Trump/White House stance on force: The Guardian (May 2025, Jan 2026)
- GOP/State Dept tempering: Washington Post (Jan 2026)
- NATO coverage and European warnings: Euronews (Jan 2025), Reuters (Jan 2026)
- https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/01/23/greenland-is-covered-by-collective-security-of-nato-says-finnish-foreign-minister?utm_source=openai
- https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/european-commissioner-says-us-military-takeover-greenland-would-be-end-nato-2026-01-12/?utm_source=openai
- Greenland/Denmark position: Reuters (Jan 2026)
- 2019 context: The Guardian
- Background on status and Pituffik/Thule: Overview
Bottom line
- The heat is real: recent U.S. statements put military force on the table. But “at any price” is not documented.
- If force were used, it wouldn’t just bruise feelings—it could rupture NATO. Europe’s most potent responses are collective defense mechanisms and coordinated political isolation, not tit‑for‑tat against a single leader.