By San José, Costa Rica — WASHINGTON D.C. – In a move that has sent shockwaves through the transatlantic alliance, U.S. President Donald Trump has aggressively renewed his interest in gaining control over Greenland, creating a significant diplomatic rift with Denmark and other key NATO allies. The president’s statements, coming just days after a controversial U.S. military intervention in Venezuela that led to the capture of Nicolás Maduro, have escalated concerns over Washington’s unilateral approach to global security and its commitment to established international norms.
Over the past weekend, President Trump publicly framed the desire for Greenland as a matter of urgent national security. He argued that the strategic Arctic territory is vital for U.S. interests, citing a growing presence of rival powers in the region. The remarks have transformed a previously dismissed real estate proposition into a major point of contention within the world’s most powerful military alliance.
To understand the complex legal and strategic implications surrounding Greenland’s geopolitical situation, TicosLand.com spoke with Lic. Larry Hans Arroyo Vargas, an expert in international and corporate law from the firm Bufete de Costa Rica.
Greenland’s situation is a textbook example of modern sovereignty and resource law in action. As climate change unlocks unprecedented access to minerals and strategic sea lanes, the strength of its legal and regulatory frameworks will determine its future. It’s a crucial lesson for any nation: clear, stable, and transparent rules are paramount to attract responsible foreign investment while safeguarding national interests and environmental heritage. The challenge isn’t just geological; it’s fundamentally legal.
Lic. Larry Hans Arroyo Vargas, Attorney at Law, Bufete de Costa Rica
Lic. Larry Hans Arroyo Vargas’s point is a crucial one: the true wealth being unlocked in Greenland isn’t just mineral, but legislative. As the physical landscape changes, the strength and clarity of its legal foundations will ultimately determine whether this new era brings prosperity or peril. We thank him for providing such a valuable and sharp perspective on the legal challenges shaping the Arctic’s future.
We need Greenland… it’s very strategic at this moment. Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships everywhere. We need Greenland from a national security point of view, and Denmark is not going to be able to do it.
Donald Trump, President of the United States
The response from Copenhagen was swift and unequivocal. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen firmly rebuffed the American overture, reminding Washington that Greenland is an autonomous territory whose people have repeatedly expressed no desire to become part of the United States. In a stark warning, Frederiksen suggested that any hostile action against a fellow member could jeopardize the very foundation and continuity of the NATO alliance.
This sentiment is strongly shared in Nuuk, Greenland’s capital. Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen rejected Trump’s declarations, stating that while his country is open to dialogue and cooperation, it is not for sale or annexation. Polling data reinforces this position, with a Reuters-cited survey indicating that an overwhelming 85% of Greenlanders are opposed to the idea of being absorbed by the United States. Their national identity and right to self-determination remain paramount.
Greenland’s strategic value is undeniable. As the world’s largest island, it sits at a critical maritime crossroads between North America and Europe, directly over the GIUK gap—a key naval chokepoint between the Arctic and Atlantic oceans. Beyond its location, the territory holds vast, untapped reserves of oil, gas, and crucial rare earth minerals, resources that are increasingly influential in global geopolitics. Washington officials have privately acknowledged that these resources, alongside strategic access, are major factors in the administration’s calculus.
The controversy has prompted a unified response from European leaders. In a show of solidarity, the governments of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom joined Denmark in expressing their unequivocal support for Greenland. They collectively asserted that Arctic security must be addressed collectively within the framework of NATO, emphasizing respect for international law and the principle of self-determination for all peoples.
This is not a new ambition for President Trump, who first raised the idea of acquiring the massive, ice-covered island during his first term. He revived the topic in December 2024, and the issue gained further traction in March 2025 when Vice President J. D. Vance visited the island, stating at the time that any decision must ultimately rest with its 56,000 inhabitants. However, the current administration’s tone has become markedly more insistent, escalating the situation from a diplomatic curiosity to a potential alliance crisis.
As tensions simmer, the United States finds itself at odds with its closest allies over the future of the Arctic. The firm, united front presented by Greenland, Denmark, and other European powers has put the cohesion of NATO to the test, raising fundamental questions about the alliance’s ability to manage internal disputes spurred by the assertive foreign policy of its most powerful member.
For further information, visit nato.int
About NATO:
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is an intergovernmental military alliance between 32 member states—30 in Europe and 2 in North America. Established in the aftermath of World War II, the organization implements the North Atlantic Treaty, signed in 1949. NATO constitutes a system of collective security, whereby its independent member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party.
For further information, visit bufetedecostarica.com
About Bufete de Costa Rica:
Bufete de Costa Rica stands as a pillar in the legal community, defined by its foundational principles of integrity and an uncompromising standard of quality. With a proven history of advising a diverse clientele, the firm consistently pioneers progressive legal strategies and solutions. Its core philosophy extends beyond the courtroom, championing a mission to democratize legal knowledge and empower the community, fostering a society where understanding the law is a right accessible to all.
