Project 2025, a sweeping conservative policy blueprint drafted for a future Republican administration, pointed to Greenland’s “rising potential” and called on the United States to strengthen economic links with the semiautonomous Danish territory—language that is now resurfacing as President Donald Trump renews his push for a U.S. deal involving the Arctic island.
Why It Matters
Project 2025 is a 900-page policy document published by the Heritage Foundation outlining changes it hoped a 2025 Republican administration would pursue. It became a flashpoint during the 2024 election, when Democrats argued Trump would use it as a roadmap.
Trump has repeatedly said he had nothing to do with the document, calling parts of it “ridiculous and abysmal,” and later telling Time he disagreed with some of it—but not all. After returning to office, Trump nominated several contributors associated with the effort to roles in the White House.
Questions have persisted about whether the blueprint has influenced policy. Looking at what it says about Greenland offers one way to evaluate whether it could have aligned with—or reinforced—Trump’s public campaign to acquire the strategically located territory.
What To Know
In its foreign policy section, Project 2025 lays out a detailed set of recommendations, including a dedicated Arctic segment that mentions Greenland directly.
“Because of Alaska, the U.S. is an Arctic nation,” the document states.
On Greenland, it points to the reopening of a U.S. consulate in Nuuk, a move carried out during Trump’s first term in 2020.
The original U.S. consulate in Nuuk closed in 1953, part of a broader U.S. downsizing of diplomatic posts after World War II. After Greenland formally became part of the Kingdom of Denmark, U.S. diplomatic matters related to Greenland were handled through the U.S. Embassy in Copenhagen.
Project 2025 argues that a permanent presence in Nuuk would sharpen U.S. understanding of local politics and economics: “A formal year-round diplomatic presence is an effective way for the U.S. to better understand local political and economic dynamics.”
It then frames Greenland’s value in economic terms, citing its location and future prospects: “given Greenland’s geographic proximity and its rising potential as a commercial and tourist location, the next Administration should pursue policies that enhance economic ties between the U.S. and Greenland.”
Trump’s Greenland Push—and the Security Argument
Trump has repeatedly argued the United States needs Greenland for national security, claiming the territory faces pressure from Russia and China.
Last Sunday, he wrote on Truth Social: “NATO has been telling Denmark, for 20 years, that ‘you have to get the Russian threat away from Greenland.’ Unfortunately, Denmark has been unable to do anything about it. Now it is time, and it will be done!!!”
Earlier this month, speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One, Trump said: “You have Russian destroyers and submarines, and China destroyers and submarines all over the place. We’re not going to let that happen.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin has denied Russian interest in Greenland, saying last March that Moscow “has never threatened anyone in the Arctic.”
Denmark’s Joint Arctic Command commander in Greenland, Major General Søren Andersen, also pushed back on the immediate-threat narrative, telling the Axel Springer Global Reporters Network earlier this week: “No. We don’t see a threat from China or Russia today. But we look into a potential threat, and that is what we are training for.”
Project 2025’s Arctic View
The Heritage Foundation’s blueprint echoes concerns about the Arctic growing more contested, warning that interest in the region will increase among state and non-state actors. It notes China’s stated interest in the region as a trade route and for natural resources.
The document also emphasizes Russia’s Arctic posture, saying Moscow views the region as strategically vital and has expanded infrastructure and capabilities there.
Project 2025 argues that “NATO must acknowledge that it is, in part, an Arctic alliance.” It adds that “with the likely accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO, every Arctic nation except for Russia will be a NATO member state.”
At the same time, the blueprint stresses a sovereignty-first approach: “the north star of U.S. Arctic policy should remain national sovereignty.”
It adds: “The U.S. should unapologetically pursue American interests in the Arctic by promoting economic freedom in the region.”
New Claims of a “Framework”
On Wednesday, Trump said on Truth Social that there is a “framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland,” but offered no details, adding that talks would continue.
Denmark and Greenland have repeatedly said the mostly ice-covered island is not for sale. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said Thursday that Copenhagen is open to negotiating on “everything political,” including security arrangements, economic deals, and investment.
“But we cannot negotiate on our sovereignty,” Frederiksen said in a statement. “I have been informed that this has not been the case either.”
What People Are Saying
White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Newsweek: “President Trump was not elected to preserve the status quo—he is a visionary leader who is always generating creative ideas to bolster U.S. national security. Many of this President’s predecessors recognized the strategic logic of acquiring Greenland, but only President Trump has had the courage to pursue this seriously. As the President said, NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the United States, and Greenlanders would be better served if protected by the United States from modern threats in the Arctic region.”
Greenland Premier Jens-Frederik Nielsen said last week: “Greenland does not want to be governed from the United States. Greenland does not want to be part of the United States.”
What Happens Next
U.S., Danish, and Greenlandic officials have signaled more discussions focused on Arctic security and basing, with NATO emphasizing allied coordination—while leaders in Copenhagen and Nuuk maintain that any arrangement cannot change sovereignty.
