Claim: “The world would be safer if Donald Trump took over Greenland”
Claim summary
Nigel Farage said the world would be a “better” and “more secure” place if Donald Trump pursued US control of Greenland, echoing comments made by Trump at the World Economic Forum in Davos. Supporters argue this reflects hard-headed geopolitics rather than a literal proposal.
Verdict: ❌ Misleading
What is being claimed
Farage’s comments imply that:
- US control of Greenland would increase global security
- Trump’s position on Greenland is strategically sound and realistic
- Such a move would strengthen NATO and Western defence
- Opposition reflects political sensitivity rather than legal or strategic reality
Although framed rhetorically, the claim treats the idea as a credible security proposition.
What would be required for the claim to be true
For the claim to be accurate, evidence would need to show that:
- Greenland could be transferred to US control under international law
- Such a transfer would be welcomed by Greenland’s population or Denmark
- US control would materially improve global or regional security
- The move would strengthen, rather than destabilise, NATO and allied relations
Available evidence does not support these conditions.
What Farage and Trump said
Speaking on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Farage said there was “no doubt” the world would be safer if the United States took control of Greenland. He aligned himself with Trump’s long-standing interest in the territory and defended Trump’s broader criticism of NATO burden-sharing.
Trump has previously suggested acquiring Greenland for strategic reasons, reviving the idea during discussions at Davos. Farage described this approach as realistic and dismissed criticism as diplomatic squeamishness.
Why the claim is misleading
Greenland cannot be “taken over”
Greenland is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark. Any change in sovereignty would require:
- The consent of Greenland’s population
- The agreement of Denmark
- Compliance with international law
Both Danish and Greenlandic leaders have repeatedly stated that Greenland is not for sale. Treating US control as a plausible option ignores this reality.
No evidence of increased global security
There is no credible evidence that US ownership of Greenland would:
- Reduce global conflict
- Improve NATO cohesion
- Enhance Arctic stability
On the contrary, experts warn that such a move would likely increase geopolitical tension, particularly with Russia and China, and strain relations between NATO allies.
NATO implications are misrepresented
Farage framed the idea as strengthening Western defence, but NATO security is based on:
- Collective defence agreements
- Existing US military access to Greenland
- Cooperation with Denmark as a NATO ally
The US already operates military facilities in Greenland with Danish consent. Ownership is not required to maintain security cooperation.
Conflating opinion with fact
Farage’s statement presents a personal geopolitical opinion as if it were a factual assessment of global security. There is no supporting evidence from defence analysts, NATO leadership, or international institutions that US control of Greenland would make the world safer.
Wider political context
Farage’s comments form part of a broader pattern of public alignment with Trump’s foreign policy instincts, including scepticism about NATO and support for unilateral US actions. While political opinion is legitimate, presenting speculative territorial acquisition as a security solution crosses into misleading territory.
Conclusion
Nigel Farage said the world would be safer if Donald Trump took control of Greenland. This claim is not supported by international law, security analysis, or diplomatic reality.
Greenland cannot be transferred without consent, the US already has military access, and there is no evidence that ownership would improve global security. Treating the idea as a serious solution misrepresents how international security and alliances actually function.
Verdict
❌ Misleading
Farage’s claim frames a speculative and legally implausible idea as a credible security policy, without evidence that it would improve global safety.
Sources
- The Guardian – Reporting on Farage’s comments on Greenland and Trump
- GB News – Farage interview discussing Trump, NATO, and Greenland
- Danish Government – Statements on Greenland’s status
- NATO – Information on Arctic defence and allied cooperation