Lynn Schmidt: Trump's push for Greenland risks breaking NATO's core pact

Lynn Schmidt, St. Louis Post-Dispatch on Jan 20, 2026

Published in Op Eds

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

Step back and try to make sense of President Donald Trump’s foreign policy and national security objectives when it comes to acquiring Greenland.

It's not easy.

If stopping Russia and China are the objectives for taking control of Greenland, there are much smarter ways to do it, including increasing U.S. support for the NATO and backing Ukraine in its war against Russia — rather than threatening a fellow NATO member.

Trump is right to acknowledge that Russia and China are America's adversaries. But taking control of Greenland and breaking the covenant the U.S. has with its NATO allies is likely to bring anything but increased security to our nation.

Greenland is a self-governing territory of Denmark, which is a fellow NATO member. Any attack on another NATO member’s territory would wreak havoc on the world order.

NATO was formed in 1945 as a collective security against Soviet expansion after World War II. According to NATO’s own website: “NATO’s purpose is to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means” while promoting democratic values and providing a permanent structure for its members to consult and cooperate on defense and security-related issues.

Collective defense is NATO’s most fundamental principle. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty states that an armed attack against one NATO member shall be considered an attack against them all — even if that attack is coming from inside the alliance.

The value of this mutual defense becomes clearer when examining recent history. Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 shattered any illusions that territorial aggression in Europe was a thing of the past.

The non-NATO status of Ukraine left it vulnerable in ways that Baltic states, once also under Soviet control, are not. Finland's and Sweden's subsequent rush to join the alliance underscores how seriously nations on Russia's periphery take the protection NATO membership provides.

Trump has always aspired of having Greenland under U.S. control. What’s new is his aggressive rhetoric — as well as the options he is publicly floating, including military action, to get it.

On Jan. 10, Trump said that if he is unable to make a deal to acquire the territory “the easy way,” then he will have to “do it the hard way.”

Trump went on to tell reporters: “We are going to do something in Greenland, whether they like it or not, because if we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor.”

Diplomats from Denmark and Greenland met with Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio last week at the White House. After the meeting, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen described a "fundamental disagreement" between the parties regarding the Greenland's sovereignty.

It is difficult to evaluate Trump’s agenda with his often-contradictory relationship with Russia and grievances with Ukraine and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Trump has consistently praised Russian President Vladimir Putin personally, calling him “smart” and a “strong leader” while claiming he could negotiate effectively with him due to their relationship. He's argued that improved U.S.-Russia relations would benefit American interests and has criticized what he views as excessive focus on Russia as a threat.

However, Trump has also acted in ways that were tough on Russia, including sanctions, military aid to Ukraine, and withdrawing from arms control treaties.

Trump blames Ukraine, not Russia, for interfering with the 2016 election, and for his first impeachment.

Trump was correct in pushing the other NATO countries to increase their defense spending and those countries have responded. In 2024, NATO Allies in Europe committed to invest 380 billion U.S. dollars in defense, amounting to 2% of their combined GDP.

The U.S. already has a strategic presence in Greenland with Pituffik Space Base, formerly known as Thule Air Base since a 1951 Defense Agreement between Denmark and the U.S. The U.S. military has been operating there since World War II and currently monitors for missiles. This military base could presumably expand, if needed.

If the United States is interested in protecting our national interests from threats against Russia and China, then NATO deserves not dissolution, but continued support to meet the challenges ahead.

But it will take a much more courageous Republican Congress to step up, take this senseless foreign policy mess and make it make sense.

____