Home › Analysis › The US’ Acquisition Of Greenland Could Lead To A Deal For Canada’s Arctic Islands

The US’ Acquisition Of Greenland Could Lead To A Deal For Canada’s Arctic Islands

By Editor on 21st January 2026 • ( 0 )

The US’ Acquisition Of Greenland Could Lead To A Deal For Canada’s Arctic Islands

Trump might claim that building “Golden Dome” infrastructure there, possibly with the partial purpose of serving as a cover for deploying new offensive weapons systems in the Arctic for targeting Russia and China, is required for plugging the gap between the world’s largest island and Alaska.

Trump framed his desired acquisition of Greenland as indispensable to his “Golden Dome” missile defence megaproject and hinted at the deployment of new offensive weapons systems there too in his post announcing tariffs against several NATO allies that symbolically dispatched military units there. He’s now reportedly using similar language in private when discussing Canada, according to several administration sources, both current and former, who recently informed NBC News of this.

They claim that Trump hasn’t discussed stationing US troops along Canada’s allegedly vulnerable northern border, instead proposing “more joint U.S. and Canadian military training and operations, and increasing joint air and water patrols as well as American ship patrols in the Arctic.” The ostensibly defensive purposes that those plans would advance, however, would still leave a conspicuous gap in the “Golden Dome’s” Arctic interception range between Alaska and Greenland over Canada’s Arctic islands.

It therefore can’t be ruled out that the reported proposals are ultimately meant to advance his goal of building “Golden Dome” infrastructure on those islands for plugging this gap. Offensive weapons systems could also be placed there too, including under the cover of interceptor missiles exactly as Russia has long accused the US of plotting in Central & Eastern Europe as regards its missile defence plans in Poland and Romania, which were significantly the first source of 21^st-century tensions between them.

History might be repeating itself as ominously hinted by Trump’s lack of interest in extending the New START before its expiry early next month, let alone negotiating an updated strategic arms control pact with Russia that includes new offensive weapons systems. If the US lets the agreement lapse, then it might be due to unstated plans to deploy offensive weapons in the Arctic, whether Alaska, Greenland, and/or Canada’s Arctic islands. These could cover all of Russia and even easily reach China too.

On that topic, China is assessed by the US to be its only strategic rival, not Russia. Per the Elbridge Colby-influenced “Trump Doctrine”, Russia’s role is relegated to a junior partner in a rejuvenated US-led world order in which the US would invest in its resource deposits so as to deprive China of access to them for decelerating its superpower trajectory. If tensions with Russia abate, then the US would expect that Russia wouldn’t try to intercept the US’ Arctic-launched missiles headed for China in the event of war.

Regardless of however the US’ relations with Russia evolve and whatever Russia might do in the above scenario, the US is expected to pursue the expansion of its sphere of military influence over North America’s entire Arctic domain, beginning with Greenland and ending with Canada’s Arctic islands. Its acquisition of the first can lead to a tariff-coerced deal for building military infrastructure in the second, and possibly joint resource extraction projects, which could be facilitated by promised tariff relief.

Canada is incapable of defending its Arctic islands so they’re the US’ for the taking if the push comes to shove, but Trump doesn’t seem interested in annexing them, ergo why he’ll likely opt for a coerced deal. Acquiring Greenland would enable Trump to argue that the “Golden Dome’s” expansion to Canada’s Arctic islands would plug the gap between the world’s largest island and Alaska. Canada could then reach a relatively fair deal, be coerced into a worse one after tariffs, or have the islands forcibly taken from it.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Voice of East.