Name: US needs Greenland for National Security, President Trump says | BBC News
Uploaded: 2026-01-14T17:21:23.000Z
Duration: 6 min 4 s
Description: 【看影片學英語】數萬部 YouTube 影片，搭配英漢字典即點即查，輕鬆掌握單字發音與用法，長久累積看電影不必再看字幕。

Breaking news in the last few minutes as President Trump is renewing his claim that Greenland should be controlled by the United States.

He's written on Truth Social that the United States needs Greenland for the purpose of national security.

It is vital for the golden dome that we are building.

NATO should be leading the way for us to get it.

If we don't, Russia or China will, and that's not going to happen.

He says NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the United States.

These were the posts on Truth Social in the last few minutes.

And it all comes as the US Vice President JD Vance is due to host the Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers at the White House in the coming hours, as well as their US Counterpart, Marco Rubio.

The focus of today's talks is the future status of the world's biggest island, Greenland, which is a semi autonomous territory of Denmark in the Arctic.

Denmark insists Greenland is its sovereign territory, a position supported by major European powers, including the UK And France.

For more on this, our Europe editor Katya Adler is in the Greenlandic capital Nook for us.

He says he has to have Greenland for national security reasons.

He claims that if the US doesn't take Greenland, than China and Russia will.

You have the Greenlandic foreign minister and the Danish foreign minister who say, no, I mean, you can't touch our sovereignty.

So I mean that there's not going to be much to discuss.

And there the conversation could get very difficult.

It depends how the White House has planned today's meeting in a spirit of compromise or confrontation, because there is room for chat.

If national security is Donald Trump's real concern and priority here, then NATO allies, I mean, the US And Denmark are in NATO and therefore Greenland as well, have been scrambling to come up with other proposals to say that they can boost the security around this island.

I mean, it is the biggest island in the world, but 80% of it roughly is ice sheet.

But around the coast you have waters that are really key for monitoring the comings and goings of Russian ships or China, Chinese ships, but

So NATO says it has an answer for that and the United States doesn't need to go it alone.

Is Donald Trump thinking about economic security here?

Because this island is rich in natural resources.

If you're looking at rare earths and minerals, something that not just Donald Trump wants, but

every other global leader, perhaps he's interested in that.

While Greenland and Denmark could offer investment opportunities.

But again, if, if it comes to the sovereignty question, then it's a no from Denmark, a no from Greenland.

But Donald Trump says yes, he has to have it.

So, you know, let's see what actually happens at the meeting today.

Let's speak to Malta Hamburg, founder and senior fellow at the Arctic Institute, which is an independent think tank.

So Donald Trump making that point that he believes Greenland needs to go to the US first for its national security and in fact, for the security of NATO.

Is that not a compelling argument as he says?

Otherwise, it faces threats from Russia and China.

Yeah, looks like we're continuing on the same path we've been on for the last few weeks.

And the question is really, what can we expect from the meeting today?

There doesn't seem to be a lot of room for negotiations with Greenland and Denmark having said very firmly no.

And as you just mentioned, President Trump a few minutes ago reiterating that the US has to have Greenland one way or the other.

And the question really is, what's the end game here?

Because under the defense agreement between Greenland, denmark and the U.S.

washington already has the right to reopen bases.

The U.S. has just recently kind of woken up to the Arctic.

And it's really interesting, this focus on Greenland when on the other hand, in Alaska, the US doesn't really has thought about the Arctic a lot.

We had Chinese, Russian naval activity up and down the Alaska coastline two years ago.

This past summer, China sent five icebreakers.

The US doesn't have a lot of capacity to kind of counter that threat.

And so is this just rhetoric trying to get NATO allies to boost its Arctic defense spending, similar to how President Trump kind of pushed NATO members to, you know, up its defense spending above 3% of GDP?

Or is this going to be, you know, a continued push to, to, to grab Greenland one way or the other?

And what are the options, in your view, for the US if it's determined to go that route?

Well, you know, of course we have the Venezuela option where there's suddenly helicopters showing up over, over Newark.

And I think we all hope that that's not the route that the US Is going.

Of course, there's significant differences between Venezuela and Denmark, Greenland being a NATO, a NATO ally.

But there's definitely a lot of rhetoric.

There could be continued political push where you kind of keep this discourse up, you try to create pressure.

There is the provision for a referendum for independence.

Of course, right now, 95% of Greenlandic people do not want to join the U.S.

so I'm not sure where the end game is there.

One could also see a larger domain where the US Kind of maybe tries to play Ukraine for, for Greenland, where the US in order to continue to support Ukraine, demands Greenland or greater influence in Greenland, some kind of new, new legal framework beyond what is already in place.

And I guess we will find out in the coming weeks and months where where this is headed.

Yes, that, that, that latter option has certainly had some attention, hasn't it?

But very grateful to you for your time today from the Arctic Institute.