Fears Donald Trump could back Falklands land grab from Argentina

Military and political experts are raising serious concerns about whether Britain could successfully defend the Falkland Islands if a future U.S. administration under Donald Trump ever chose to challenge British control of the territory. The discussion has gained momentum following Trump’s recent threats toward Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark and a NATO ally.

The scenario surfaced during a Sky News podcast when a listener posed a stark hypothetical question to journalists Martha Kelner and James Matthews: Would Britain be able or willing to defend the Falklands if a U.S. president decided to take them?

James Matthews acknowledged that while such a scenario remains hypothetical, it exposes real vulnerabilities. The Falkland Islands are undisputed UK sovereign territory, but they also remain a long-standing point of contention for Argentina, just as they were during the 1982 war. That historical context matters, because Britain’s successful defense of the islands four decades ago depended heavily on U.S. political and military support.

Back then, Washington played a decisive behind-the-scenes role. Today, that support can no longer be taken for granted. Matthews noted that Donald Trump has cultivated an unusually close relationship with Argentina’s libertarian president, Javier Milei. If Trump were back in power, that dynamic could significantly complicate Britain’s strategic calculations.

The concern isn’t that the Falklands are currently on Trump’s agenda but that recent behavior suggests long-standing assumptions about alliances may no longer apply. Matthews warned that under a Trump presidency, Britain could face genuine uncertainty about whether the United States would back London in a territorial dispute involving Argentina.

These concerns are unfolding against the backdrop of Trump’s extraordinary threats toward Greenland. The former president has openly suggested using military force to seize the Arctic territory from Denmark, framing the move as a “national security priority.” The White House has confirmed that military options have not been ruled out, with officials stating that the administration is considering “a range of options” to assert control over the region.

Greenland holds strategic significance due to its location and the presence of a critical U.S. military base. Trump has repeatedly claimed without providing evidence that the territory is increasingly surrounded by Russian and Chinese activity, arguing that Denmark lacks the capability to defend it effectively.

The reaction from Europe has been swift and severe. Leaders from Denmark, France, Germany, the UK, and other NATO members issued a unified statement rejecting Trump’s rhetoric and reaffirming the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. They emphasized that Greenland’s future belongs to its people, not foreign powers.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen went further, warning that any U.S. military action against Greenland would fundamentally undermine NATO itself. She described the threats as unacceptable and absurd, stressing that it is unthinkable for the United States to threaten a long-standing ally over territory.

Tensions have only intensified following recent U.S. military actions abroad, including the dramatic operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of President Nicolás Maduro. Critics argue that these actions may be emboldening Trump’s broader territorial ambitions.

Adding to the controversy, senior Trump advisor Stephen Miller publicly argued that the United States “should have Greenland,” openly questioning Denmark’s right to control the territory and refusing to rule out the use of force.

Taken together, these developments are forcing uncomfortable conversations in London and across Europe. If traditional alliances can no longer be assumed, even long-settled territories like the Falkland Islands may not be as geopolitically secure as once believed.