This operation felt like a remake of 1989\u2019s Operation Just Cause. In that earlier case, American troops with far less celerity invaded Panama to seize its similarly indicted strongman (for racketeering and drug trafficking), Manuel Noriega, who was eventually brought back to America to face justice 42 days after that December 20, 1989 invasion began, after a dramatic standoff at the Vatican Embassy in Panama City.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is now ever more important that we anticipate Greenland could well be next \u2013 and with both prudence and urgency, plan accordingly.<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n From Operation Just Cause in 1989 to Operation Absolute Resolve in 2026, nearly four decades have passed, yet the pretext for war was one and the same: an American indictment on charges related to drug trafficking, an exiled or imprisoned democratic opposition leader gaining the sympathy and support of a sitting President, and the conflation of national security and law enforcement operations. Together, these elements forged a demonstration of American resolve and power in the western hemisphere ripped straight from the history books, restoring the 1823 Monroe Doctrine to the center of American geostrategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If anyone doubted the seriousness of America\u2019s latest National Security Strategy, newly released in late November<\/a>, those doubts would have been obliterated with the sounds of explosives rocking Caracas. Indeed, just a few weeks ago, when the updated NSS was released, many Arctic experts were left puzzled by the omission of the Arctic from the document, which muscularly re-asserted American predominance of the Americas in a hemispheric re-conceptualization of US security interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There was no Arctic section, in contrast to prior NSS documents, and no mention at all of the vast island of Greenland, which has featured prominently in President Trump\u2019s vision of expanded American hemispheric power. Had the President lost interest amidst the strenuous objections of Danish and Greenlandic elites, or was Greenland\u2019s \u2013 and more broadly, the Arctic\u2019s \u2013 omission from the NSS an illustration of strategic deception, as America continues to plot its next Arctic territorial expansion well more than a century and half after the 1867 Alaska Purchase?<\/p>\n\n\n\n After America\u2019s strike on Venezuela, few observers were thinking about the Louisiana Purchase as a likely model for Greenland\u2019s constitutional future. <\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n More ominously, could the buildup of a potent American naval armada in the Caribbean, once military operations in Venezuela conclude, steam next toward Nuuk for a rapid implementation of phase two of what we can now, without pause, call the \u201cTrump Doctrine,\u201d rather than merely a corollary of Monroe\u2019s infamous doctrine from centuries past? I think it\u2019s possible, despite the fact that it runs quite contrary to the conventional thinking of the Arctic security community, which may not fully grasp<\/em> the significance and influence of the MAGA movement, or the successful initial implementation of the Trump Doctrine in Venezuela in recent days.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Like a North Atlantic iceberg, Greenland had drifted off the global media\u2019s radar in recent months, as other places and events dominated headlines, from the festering military conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine, to the new year\u2019s showdown in Venezuela. But just before Christmas, the drought in headlines ended abruptly, with the media spotlight shining brightly once again on the world\u2019s largest island \u2013 bringing an early end to the holiday cheer for many a Dane hoping President Trump\u2019s aspiration for a Sewardian territorial expansion had been superseded by those other pressing issues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As Royal Danish Defence College associate professor Marc Jacobsen noted on LinkedIn<\/a>, \u201cLike many, I’ve taken a short break from the holidays to contribute with a few comments on Trump\u2019s decision to appoint a special envoy to Greenland,\u201d adding, \u201c\u201cI don\u2019t believe the US will use military force to take control of Greenland, but we are seeing efforts to gain influence through strategic investments and narratives portraying Denmark as a poor partner. The appointment of Jeff Landry as special envoy and Tom Dans as head of the US Arctic Research Commission should be understood in this context.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n As Jacobsen observes<\/a>, \u201cIn Greenland, these moves appear counterproductive. Rather than building trust, they risk reinforcing the perception of the US as increasingly antagonistic and a less attractive partner on Greenland\u2019s path toward greater independence.\u201d He believes that<\/a> a \u201cUS invasion of Greenland would be catastrophic \u2014 effectively marking the end of NATO and any remaining credibility of US commitments to international law. It would also put an end to any peace prize ambitions Donald Trump may hold. That said, I remain confident that such a scenario will not happen, as there are still responsible actors capable of stopping an idea this unreasonable.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n But after the swift success of President Trump\u2019s bold military action, where America\u2019s use of force was in defense of both the rule of law and eventual restoration of democracy to Venezuela, while also in support of American commercial interests (particularly regarding oil) and its counterdrug policies, one cannot simply jump to a conclusion that a second assertion of the Trump Doctrine in Greenland must automatically be catastrophic as Jacobsen contends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u00a0President Trump himself described his application of the Monroe Doctrine as the \u201cDonroe Doctrine.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Given deep moral injustices in past Danish colonial policies in Greenland, and the continued suffering that has resulted (as described here<\/a> at Arctic Today<\/em>), one could imagine a confluence of humanitarian intervention, commercial interests (particularly rare earths and uranium), and national security once again aligning as we saw this week in Venezuela, providing justification for another implementation of the Trump Doctrine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n President Trump\u2019s appointment of Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as his special envoy to Greenland need not be perceived as \u201ccounterproductive<\/a>\u201d as Jacobsen contends, since the appointment of a close confidant of POTUS to advance President Trump\u2019s ambition to extend the geographical reach of the American flag to Greenland could inject new energy and much-needed civility to this long-festering diplomatic dispute between NATO allies. Moreover, for those who fear the bold use of American military force in defense of MAGA values, Governor Landry\u2019s appointment could instead be perceived as reassuring, given that his home state of Louisiana is rich in symbolic and historic significance of a non-military nature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As Landry himself has observed, this is because of Louisiana\u2019s heritage as one of America\u2019s largest and peaceful territorial expansions, via the Louisiana Purchase of 1803.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As reported in The Hill<\/em><\/a>, \u201cLook, the United States has always been a welcoming party. We don\u2019t go in there trying to conquer anybody and trying to \u2013 you know \u2013 take over anybody\u2019s country. We say, \u2018Listen, we represent liberty, we represent economic strength, we represent protection \u2026 Look, no one knows better than Louisiana. My family has been in Louisiana for over 300 years. We\u2019ve lived under more flags than anyone living in the continental United States over the history of America. We ended up settling under the United States of America\u2019s flag, and for that, Louisiana has been so much better.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Jacobsen correctly predicted<\/a> that in response to Governor Landry\u2019s appointment as special envoy, \u201c[f]rom Denmark, Greenland, and Europe, we can expect clear condemnation, continued military exercises, and renewed emphasis on sovereignty and international law. A revised defense agreement may also be proposed \u2013 largely symbolic, but offering Trump a visible \u2018win\u2019 that could cool things off.\u201d Greenland’s PM declared that he felt \u201csad\u201d that the American president once more \u201creduced our country to a question of security and power,\u201d as reported by DW.com<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And The Guardian<\/em> reported<\/a> both the \u201cprime ministers of Denmark and Greenland have demanded respect for their borders after Donald Trump appointed a special envoy to the largely self-governing Danish territory, which he has said repeatedly should be under US control. \u2018We have said it very clearly before. Now we say it again. National borders and the sovereignty of states are rooted in international law \u2026 You cannot annex other countries,\u2019 Mette Frederiksen and Jens-Frederik Nielsen said in a joint statement. The two leaders added that \u2018fundamental principles\u2019 were at stake. \u2018Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders, and the US should not take over Greenland,\u2019 they said. \u2018We expect respect for our common territorial integrity.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n But perhaps critics of Trump\u2019s continued pursuit of Greenland<\/a> underestimate the raw power of the Trump Doctrine, including Jacobsen\u2019s suggestion that a \u201crevised defense agreement<\/a>\u201d might cool things down, when what Trump desires is not America\u2019s continued defense of Danish sovereignty over Greenland, but an end <\/em>to that sovereignty, as envisioned by the Monroe Doctrine. (Indeed, in the hours following his strike on Venezuela, President Trump himself described his application of the Monroe Doctrine as the \u201cDonroe Doctrine,\u201d borrowing this colorful term from a prescient January 8, 2025 front page of the New York Post<\/em><\/a>.<\/em>)<\/p>\n\n\n\n But as the Pentagon built up its potent armada in the Caribbean to pressure the Maduro regime in Venezuela, it left the impression that the White House was seemingly too distracted to focus its attention on icy and remote Greenland. This impression was further reinforced when the White House issued its 2025 National Security Strategy<\/a> in November, proclaiming an unabashedly America First doctrine of hemispheric security with a decidedly Monroe Doctrine vibe that seemed to ignore the Arctic entirely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As reported by Malte Humpert in High North News<\/em><\/a>, \u201cThe Trump administration\u2019s 2025 National Security Strategy omits a dedicated Arctic section, unlike its 2022 predecessor, but experts say the shift reflects a hemispheric approach\u2014not neglect\u2014with icebreaker acquisitions and the ICE Pact signaling continued U.S. engagement and strategic focus on the North American Arctic. That shift implicitly reframes the North American Arctic \u2013 including Alaska, Greenland, and Canada \u2013 as part of a broader Western-Hemisphere zone of interest.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n As an American Arctic security pundit cited by Humpert explains<\/a>, \u201cIt\u2019s not surprising that President Trump\u2019s 2025 National Security Strategy does not address the Arctic directly, given its explicit emphasis on prioritizing \u2018core foreign policy interests\u2019,\u201d which suggests the Arctic falls outside the strategic core of North America. The new NSS<\/a> thus \u201clays out a \u2018Trump Corollary\u2019 to the historic Monroe Doctrine, putting the Western Hemisphere \u2013 and, by extension, the North American Arctic \u2013 at the top of U.S. strategic concern.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Humpert also cites an Australian Arctic security pundit<\/a> who \u201cargues that the absence of a named \u2018Arctic\u2019 section does not mean the region has been overlooked\u201d and that the new NSS<\/a> \u201cis actually a clear signal that the Arctic is an established theater within the Trump administration\u2019s notion of returning to a hemispheric defense strategy.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In contrast, as geopolitical expert Klaus Dodds observes<\/a> on LinkedIn, \u201cWhile it is common for commentators to talk about the Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, I would focus on another analogy that you will see with current U.S. posture towards Greenland.<\/p>\n\n\n Why you might ask was the Governor for Louisiana asked to act as special envoy to Greenland \u2013 one answer might be that the potential acquisition of Greenland has been compared by some to the 19th century Louisiana Purchase \u2013 in territorial size at least. Before his election in 2024, Trump reportedly told journalists in 2022 that, \u201cI love maps. And I always said: \u2018Look at the size of [Greenland]. It\u2019s massive. That should be part of the United States.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Governor Landry himself refers to his state\u2019s iconic history and the contemporary relevance of the Louisiana Purchase for America\u2019s pursuit of Greenland, suggesting invasion and annexation are not necessarily his objectives as the President\u2019s special envoy for Greenland.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But after America\u2019s strike on Venezuela, few observers were thinking about the Louisiana Purchase as a likely model for Greenland\u2019s constitutional future. This was because the conversation had shifted at the White House in the exuberant aftermath of the successful Maduro snatch-and-grab, while preliminary confidence in the newly asserted Trump Doctrine was at a zenith.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The headlines have been dramatic, from BBC<\/em><\/a> (\u201c\u2018We need Greenland\u2019: Trump repeats threat to annex Danish territory\u201d) to The Guardian<\/em><\/a> (\u201cUS attack on Greenland would mean end of Nato, says Danish PM: Mette Frederiksen criticizes Donald Trump\u2019s \u2018unacceptable pressure\u2019 as Greenland counterpart condemns \u2018fantasies\u2019\u201d) and CNBC<\/em><\/a> (\u201cDenmark in \u2018crisis mode\u2019 as Trump sets sights on Greenland after Venezuela attack\u201d). As CNBC<\/em> reported,<\/a> Trump told the press on Sunday aboard Air Force One, \u201cWe need Greenland from the standpoint of national security and Denmark is not going to be able to do it, I can tell you.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n And, if a picture is worth a thousand words, a now iconic image widely circulated from the X account of Katie Miller, wife of Trump\u2019s Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller (a leading architect of Trump\u2019s aggressive Venezuela policy), portrayed a map of Greenland superimposed by the Red, White and Blue with the ominous (to Denmark) caption, \u201cSOON\u201d in all caps<\/a> \u2013 which has since been reposted all around the world, in both mainstream news as well as social media, including the LinkedIn feed of Arctic geopolitics expert Klaus Dodds<\/a>, cited above, who writes that \u201cthe days have long since passed that such images can be simply laughed off. No doubt few in Denmark and Greenland will forget President Trump remarking last year that the US would acquire Greenland one way or another.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n Soon after his wife\u2019s controversial X posting, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller doubled down on America’s right to possess Greenland in a fiery interview with Jake Tapper on CNN<\/em>\u2019s The Lead. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Noting Greenland\u2019s small population (and getting it wrong by half, wrongly stating it\u2019s 30,000), Miller added<\/a>, \u201cThe real question is about 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 in Denmark? The United States is the power of NATO. For the United States to secure the Arctic region to protect and defend NATO and NATO interests, obviously, Greenland should be part of the United States.\u201d Miller added<\/a>: \u201cBut we live in a world, in the real world \u2026 that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n Miller reminded Tapper that the President\u2019s view on Greenland has remained unchanged<\/a>: \u201cThe president has been clear for months now \u2013 so I know you\u2019re treating this as breaking news \u2013 the president has been clear for months now that the United States should be the nation that has Greenland as part of our overall security apparatus,\u201d and \u201cthat\u2019s been the formal position of the U.S. government since the beginning of this administration, frankly going back to the previous Trump administration, that Greenland should be part of the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe National Security Strategy and the Arctic Omission<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Greenland Returns to the Center of the Debate<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
From Venezuela to Greenland: Reframing the Trump Doctrine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Louisiana, Landry, and the Limits of Diplomatic De-escalation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Strategic Deception and the Arctic Blind Spot<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"Front](\"https:\/\/politicsrights.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/greenland_Donroe-doctrine.webp\")
Competing Arctic Interpretations: Doctrine or Distraction?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Explore Books Written by Our Contributors<\/strong><\/h2>
From Historical Analogy to Immediate Crisis<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
From Provocation to Policy: Signaling Greenland\u2019s Place in the Trump Doctrine<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"Katie](\"https:\/\/politicsrights.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/greenland.webp\")
![\"State](\"https:\/\/politicsrights.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/G96iTxLXcAANsjk.webp\")
From Rhetoric to Readiness: Anticipating the Next Move<\/h2>\n\n\n\n