Donald Trump ‘very serious’ about taking Greenland - here’s what would happen if he does

Donald Trump has doubled down on his plans to 'take over' Greenland, claiming the US needs it for 'national security'.

The 79-year-old American President has had his eye on the self-governing territory for some time now, after first expressing interest back in March.

Trump sent Vice President JD Vance overseas to check out a naval base located there and later said he wouldn't rule out using force to take over the area, despite America and Denmark being NATO allies.

The Republican leader has cited both Greenland's strategic location for defence purposes and mineral wealth as reasons for wanting it.

According to the BBC, Greenland's Prime Minister Jens Frederik Nielsen has responded to all this simply by saying 'that's enough now' and described the potential US control over the island as nothing but a 'fantasy'.

As per NBC News, he said: "When the president of the United States talks about ‘we need Greenland’ and connects us with Venezuela and military intervention, it’s not just wrong. This is so disrespectful.

Donald Trump has doubled down again on his Greenland plans (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

"Our country is not an object of superpower rhetoric. We are a people. A land. And democracy. This has to be respected. Especially by close and loyal friends."

However, as we say, Trump has doubled down again and insisted he's 'serious'.

Speaking to NBC on Monday evening (5 January), the US president said: "We need Greenland for national security, and that includes Europe. You know I'm very loyal to Europe. We need it for national security, right now."

He added: "I think that Greenland is very important for the national security of the United States, Europe, and other parts of the free world."

Trump admitted he had 'no timeline' for putting his plan into place, but maintained that he is 'very serious' about it all.

Trump has had his eye on Greenland for some time now (Getty Stock Image)

What would happen if Trump did take Greenland?

Greenland belongs to Denmark, which makes it part of the NATO security area.

If Trump did attempt to take it, the US would then be acting against a fellow NATO member, and that alone would put the alliance into question, as it has never faced a situation where its strongest member is the aggressor.

Any attempt to seize Greenland would legally count as an attack on Denmark itself, so it's unknown exactly what would happen next.

Denmark's leader has also warned that if Trump goes ahead, it could actually spell the end of NATO altogether.

As reported by Politico, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said in an interview with broadcaster TV2: "I will also make it clear that if the US chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops, including NATO and thus the security that has been established since the end of the Second World War."

It could spell the end of NATO altogether (Leon Neal/Getty Images)

Article 5 says members defend each other if attacked and Greenland falls under NATO’s geographical protection, however, it gets complicated as NATO decisions require all members to agree.

Because America would be the attacker, it would block any decision against itself and it's thought that NATO could not launch a collective military response, even though Denmark would be under attack.

However, even if NATO could not act as one, other allies would still be legally and politically obliged to help Denmark.

Support would most likely take non-military forms such as sanctions, intelligence sharing, cyber sharing, economic pressure and diplomatic isolation of the US.

And instead of acting through NATO headquarters, countries would be more likely to form smaller coalitions to support Denmark.

We could see joint exercises, intelligence cooperation and limited troop deployments designed to signal support rather than actually fighting the US.

In the long term, Denmark would likely bring their case to the United Nations and argue that the US violated international law.

It's thought that the US would veto any binding action at the Security Council and the issue would then shift to the General Assembly and international courts, creating long-term diplomatic isolation rather than immediate consequences.