The art of the deal: Why the President probably didn’t ever really want Greenland
By Easton Martin | January 23, 2026
President Trump’s renewed talk of acquiring Greenland has been widely dismissed as “unrealistic” or “provocative”. But viewed through the lens of Trump’s long-stated negotiating philosophy, the proposal may have been less about ownership and more about leverage.
In The Art of the Deal, Trump outlines a simple approach to negotiation: start with a maximal position, then negotiate downward to secure what you actually want. Applied to Greenland, that framework suggests the president’s public push for U.S. control was never intended as a literal end goal. Instead, it may have been designed to force negotiations over strategic interests in the Arctic.
Those interests are indeed substantial. Greenland occupies a critical position for missile defense and early warning systems, sits along key Arctic shipping routes, and holds significant reserves of rare earth minerals. As ice continues to recede, access to those resources and locations has become a growing priority for both the United States and NATO.
That context helps explain Trump’s recent discussions with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, which focused on Arctic security and alliance burden sharing. While NATO officials have emphasized that Greenland’s sovereignty was not up for negotiation, the talks focused on U.S. concerns about Russian and Chinese activity in the region and the need for expanded defense infrastructure.
By framing the issue around U.S. ownership, Trump raised the stakes and compelled allies to engage on questions they have often been reluctant to confront directly. Even if outright acquisition was never realistic, the pressure created space for discussions on expanded basing rights, missile defense cooperation, and preferential access to Arctic resources under a NATO framework.
