Trump stated that Greenland must be captured, intelligence personnel have already infiltrated in advance, and he has ordered the military to formulate a plan for seizing it.

Key Chapter Title List

1. The Evolution of the Trump Administration's Path on Greenland: From Verbal Provocation to Multi-Track Deployment
2. Fierce Political Games and Power Balances in the United States
3. Covert Intelligence Activities and Strategic Preparations
4. Strong Opposition from the International Community and the Fracturing of Alliance Relations
5. Impact Assessment on China and Strategic Response Recommendations
6. References

Document Introduction

This report aims to conduct an in-depth analysis of a series of radical strategic intentions and actions by the U.S. Trump administration regarding Greenland from 2025 to early 2026. These actions have evolved from isolated geopolitical rhetoric into a major event profoundly disrupting the security and resource landscape of the Arctic and even the world. The core manifestation is the U.S. President's public declaration that the United States must "own" Greenland to prevent control by China and Russia, vowing to take action "regardless of its will." This move not only exposes the radical tendencies of U.S. unilateralist thinking but also directly impacts the mutual trust foundation with traditional allies. It may reshape critical mineral supply chains and Arctic security architecture, posing complex implications for China's related interests.

The report first systematically outlines the evolution of the Trump administration's strategic path on Greenland, revealing its multi-track deployment that gradually escalated from verbal economic inducements to military deterrence and diplomatic pressure. Specific manifestations include the gradual escalation and hardening of strategic statements, synchronized adjustments in military and security deployments (such as transferring Greenland's military responsibility from European Command to Northern Command and leveraging the Pituffik Space Base to strengthen forward presence), and the use of comprehensive means such as diplomatic appointments (e.g., appointing a "U.S. Special Envoy for Greenland") and economic inducements. This series of actions demonstrates the U.S. attempt to strengthen control over the region and preempt critical mineral resources through hybrid strategies.

Secondly, the report analyzes the fierce political games and checks and balances within the United States surrounding this issue. Senior military leaders hold reservations or even openly resist extreme military measures. Reports indicate that the military viewed a request to formulate invasion plans as "crazy and illegal" and refused it. Both parties in Congress have shown rare legislative restraint. The Republican Party is internally divided, while Democrats warn that such actions could trigger NATO treaty obligations, leading to confrontation between the U.S. and its European allies. Furthermore, U.S. public opinion widely questions the plan. Extreme voices on social media even called for "purging" opposing generals, highlighting the profound division and risk of political turmoil this issue has sparked domestically.

At the covert action level, the report notes that the United States has been accused of intensifying intelligence-gathering activities in Greenland, even deploying personnel linked to political figures for infiltration, attempting to interfere in Greenland's internal affairs through informal channels. This has already prompted diplomatic protests from Denmark. Simultaneously, the U.S. has strengthened its forward military base, the Pituffik Space Base in Greenland, and replaced commanders whose policy stances were inconsistent with the base's, indicating preparations for a potential long-term strategic presence.

Regarding international reactions, the report details the strong opposition from Denmark, the Greenland Self-Government, the European Union, and NATO. The Danish Prime Minister warned that a U.S. military attack would lead to NATO's dissolution. Greenland's five major political parties issued a joint statement firmly opposing annexation by the United States. The EU and NATO collectively expressed support for Danish and Greenlandic sovereignty and self-determination, explicitly opposing unilateral U.S. action, and considered responding by strengthening multilateral Arctic security cooperation. Russia adopted a posture of strategic observation during this geopolitical upheaval, closely monitoring the deepening U.S.-Europe contradictions.

Finally, based on the above analysis, the report assesses the potential impact of this event on China and proposes directions for strategic response considerations. The content of this report is primarily based on open media reports, government statements, social media information, and public literature from 2025 to early 2026. It aims to provide decision-makers and researchers in related fields with systematic background analysis and decision-making references based on the development of events.