The White House isn’t backing down. If anything, they’re escalating.

On Tuesday, the administration confirmed what President Trump has been saying for weeks: acquiring Greenland is a top national security priority. All options remain on the table. Including military force.

“The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal,” the White House told Reuters, “and of course, utilizing the U.S. military is always an option at the commander-in-chief’s disposal.”

That’s not ambiguous. That’s not diplomatic hedging. That’s a direct statement that troops are being discussed.

“Russian and Chinese Ships All Over the Place”

Trump laid out the strategic reality during remarks Monday.

“We need Greenland from the standpoint of national security. It’s so strategic. Right now, Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place. Denmark is not going to be able to do it — I can tell you that.”

He’s not wrong. The Arctic is rapidly becoming contested territory. As ice melts, shipping lanes open. Resources become accessible. And great powers are racing to establish dominance.

Russia has been building Arctic military bases for years. China declared itself a “near-Arctic state” — despite being nowhere near the Arctic — and is investing heavily in polar capabilities.

And Denmark’s response? Trump couldn’t resist mocking it.

“They thought they’d boost Arctic defenses by adding one additional dog sled. They thought that was a great move. It’s true — they thought that was a great move.”

He’s referring to Denmark’s Sirius Dog Sled Patrol, an elite Royal Danish Navy unit that patrols remote Northeast Greenland. On actual dog sleds. Against Russian icebreakers and Chinese research vessels.

Stephen Miller Gets Philosophical

Senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller went on CNN and asked the question nobody in European capitals wants to answer.

“Greenland has a population of 30,000 people. The real question is: by what right does Denmark assert control over Greenland? What is the basis of their territorial claim? What is their basis of having Greenland as a colony of Denmark?”

That’s not just rhetoric. It’s a strategic reframing.

Denmark’s claim to Greenland dates back centuries — colonial acquisition, not consent of the governed. The indigenous Inuit population didn’t vote to become Danish. They were colonized.

If colonialism delegitimizes territorial claims — a principle Europeans have loudly endorsed when it comes to other continents — then why does Denmark get to keep Greenland?

Miller is turning progressive anti-colonial arguments against their proponents. It’s clever, and it puts Denmark in an awkward position.

“Nobody’s Going to Fight the United States”

Miller delivered the bottom line with characteristic bluntness.

“To protect and defend NATO interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the United States. Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.”

He’s right about the military calculus. Denmark’s armed forces are tiny. NATO’s European members combined couldn’t project power into the Arctic against American opposition. And no European country is going to war with the United States over an ice-covered island of 30,000 people.

The question isn’t whether America can take Greenland. The question is whether America should — and what it would cost diplomatically.

Greenland’s Response

Greenlandic Prime Minister Jens Frederik Nielsen issued what can only be described as an exasperated statement.

“No more pressure. No more insinuations. No more fantasies of annexation. We are open to dialogue. We are open to discussions. But this must happen through the proper channels and with respect for international law.”

“That’s enough now,” he added.

The frustration is understandable. Greenland’s leaders have repeatedly said they’re not for sale. The population has expressed no interest in becoming American. The government wants to be treated as a partner, not a possession.

But none of that changes the strategic reality. Greenland is in a critical location. Denmark can’t defend it. And America has decided it matters.

Formal U.S. Policy

Miller emphasized that this isn’t Trump freelancing.

“It has been the formal position of the U.S. government since the beginning of this administration — frankly, going back into the previous Trump administration — that Greenland should be part of the United States.”

This isn’t going away after one news cycle. It’s not a negotiating tactic that gets dropped when Denmark complains. It’s stated policy that the administration intends to pursue for the next three years.

Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry has been appointed special envoy for the Greenland effort. The State Department is reviewing options. The military is apparently being consulted.

The machinery of government is being deployed toward acquisition.

The NATO Problem

Here’s the elephant in the room: Greenland is part of Denmark, which is a NATO member.

NATO’s Article 5 commits all members to collective defense. An attack on one is an attack on all. If America used military force against Greenland, it would technically be attacking a NATO ally.

That would effectively end NATO as we know it. The alliance can’t survive its largest member invading another member’s territory.

The Trump administration knows this. They’re betting that the threat of American action — combined with the reality that nobody will actually fight over Greenland — creates negotiating leverage.

Denmark can either make a deal or face escalating pressure with no good options. What are they going to do, expel America from NATO? Sanction the country that provides 70% of the alliance’s military capability?

The Options

The White House has mentioned several pathways: direct purchase, a Compact of Free Association, or — as a last resort — military action.

A purchase would be cleanest. America pays Denmark, Greenland changes hands, everyone pretends it was voluntary.

A COFA arrangement would let Greenland maintain nominal autonomy while granting America military control and strategic access. Similar deals exist with Pacific island nations.

Military action would be catastrophic diplomatically but probably successful operationally.

The administration clearly prefers negotiation. But they’re making sure Denmark understands that negotiation isn’t the only option.

Three Years to Close

Trump has until January 2029.

That’s enough time to wear down Danish resistance through sustained pressure. Enough time for Greenland’s independence movement to gain strength. Enough time for economic incentives to reshape the political landscape.

Or enough time for something more dramatic, if the administration decides diplomacy has failed.

Miller said nobody will fight America over Greenland. He’s probably right.

The question is whether anyone will negotiate seriously — or whether they’ll wait out Trump and hope the next administration drops the issue.

The Bottom Line

The White House confirmed military options are on the table for Greenland. Stephen Miller questioned Denmark’s right to the territory. Trump mocked their Arctic defenses.

This is happening. The only questions are how and when.

Denmark can negotiate from a position of weakness now, or from an even weaker position later.

Greenland can chart its own course — but that course will inevitably involve choosing between Copenhagen and Washington.

And America has made clear it’s not asking. It’s telling.

“Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.”

That’s not a prediction. That’s a statement of fact.