Missile shield or power play? Trump says Greenland is key to his ‘Golden Dome’. Is the claim justified?

US President Donald Trump listens during an announcement about the Golden Dome missile defense shield, in the Oval Office of the White House on May 20, 2025, in Washington, DC. (Photo by Jim WATSON / AFP)

Trump claims US control of Greenland is vital for his $175-billion Golden Dome missile defense system, linking it to national security and NATO strength. Experts argue US already has needed access, calling ownership unnecessary and the debate more political than technical.

Did our AI summary help?

US President Donald Trump has revived one of his most controversial strategic ideas, arguing that American control over Greenland is essential for national security. This time, he has tied the claim directly to his flagship defence proposal, the “Golden Dome,” a $175-billion missile defence system he calls the most ambitious ever attempted by the United States.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trump said Greenland would be central to the Golden Dome, claiming it would protect not only the United States but also Canada. He insisted Ottawa “should be more grateful” for America’s security umbrella and suggested NATO would become stronger if Greenland were under US control.

Trump’s comments have reignited debate over whether Washington actually needs to own the Arctic island or whether his argument is driven more by geopolitics than defence necessity.

What is the ‘Golden Dome’?

The Golden Dome is a next-generation missile defence project launched through a US executive order last year. Trump has described it as a comprehensive shield against modern threats, including ballistic missiles, hypersonic weapons, cruise missiles and even large swarms of AI-enabled drones.

Announced in May, the plan carries a price tag of $175 billion over three years. Trump has said he wants it operational by January 2029. The programme is being led by US Space Force General Michael Guetlein and draws inspiration from Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defence Initiative, but updated for modern warfare.

At its core, the Golden Dome relies on a vast network of satellites designed to detect and track missile launches globally. These would feed data to interceptors on land, at sea, or potentially in space, creating what Pentagon planners describe as a “system of systems”.

Why Trump says Greenland is ‘vital’

Trump’s argument is based on geography. Greenland lies along the shortest Arctic routes between Eurasia and North America, paths that intercontinental missiles would likely follow in a major conflict.

“The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security,” Trump wrote earlier on Truth Social, calling the island “vital for the Golden Dome that we are building”.

At Davos, he went further. “It’s the United States alone that can protect this giant mass of land, this giant piece of ice, develop it and improve it,” he said, adding that he was seeking “immediate negotiations” over US acquisition of Greenland.

Trump has also urged NATO to support the move, arguing the alliance would become “far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the United States”.

What the US already has in Greenland

The US has operated in Greenland for decades. Under a 1951 defence agreement with Denmark, Washington has extensive access to the island for military and surveillance purposes.

The Pituffik Space Base, formerly Thule Air Base, already hosts early-warning systems critical to tracking missile launches and space activity over the Arctic. Its location provides clear line-of-sight advantages for monitoring polar trajectories.

Defence experts note that if the US wanted to add more radars, sensors or even interceptor systems, it could do so through existing agreements without owning the territory.

Do experts think ownership is necessary?

Most say no.

A former US defence official cited by Politico said improving homeland defence “whether through additional radars, communication antennas or even interceptor sites” could all be done in cooperation with Denmark. The official added that if strengthening defence were the real aim, the current approach is “off to a truly terrible start”.

Todd Harrison, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, was even more blunt. He said the US already has “unfettered access to what we need for Golden Dome in Greenland”, calling Trump’s claims that ownership is required “detached from reality”.

Could the Golden Dome be based elsewhere?

Yes. US studies have examined multiple locations within the United States. Fort Drum in New York has ranked highly in internal assessments, while others have suggested roles for sites in Canada or even deeper integration with existing NATO infrastructure.

Because the Golden Dome is designed as a layered system across space, land, sea and air, its components do not need to be concentrated in one Arctic location.

What this debate is really about

While Trump frames Greenland as indispensable to the Golden Dome, experts say the technical case does not support that claim. The United States already has access, infrastructure and legal authority to enhance missile defence from Greenland if needed.

The dispute, many argue, is less about engineering and more about Arctic power politics, NATO leverage and Trump’s broader vision of American dominance in a rapidly shifting global order.

In that sense, the Golden Dome may be as much a political symbol as a military one, with Greenland sitting at the centre of a debate about influence rather than necessity.