In 2019, President Trump described Greenland’s potential as similar to a “large real estate deal” and said “strategically it’s interesting.” At the time, the idea was a blip on the radar. Today, the rhetoric is more intense.
National Defense: At first, he said US control of the territory is “essential” for US national security, and that anything less would be “unacceptable.” He then clarified that the US would not take Greenland by military force.
After a meeting with Trump, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said, “We have formed the framework of a future deal with respect to Greenland and, in fact, the entire Arctic Region.” The resolve followed Trump’s since-withdrawn threat of a 10% tariff on European countries that had sent small deployments to Greenland.
Part of the president’s argument was, “If we don’t take [it], Russia or China will.” Russia’s top diplomat, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, said neither Russia nor China has “any such plans” and he is sure Trump’s administration is “fully aware” of that.
President Trump has spoken of creating a “Golden Dome” missile defense system that would utilize land, sea, and space to protect the US mainland. A recent Fox News (online news rated Right) segment explains Greenland’s significance in detecting and responding to a potential Russian missile attack:
Natural Resources: According to data from the US Geological Survey, Greenland has the 8th-richest natural resource reserves of any country or territory in the world. And unlike many other high-ranking regions, its resources are largely untapped.
Global Trade: Some alsocite how melting Arctic ice sheets near Greenland could open new international shipping lanes.
2. What have people in Greenland and Denmark said?
“Do local/indigenous perspectives think that the US could help them achieve independence? / Is it actually plausible that the US can help Greenland achieve independence?”
AllSides reader Katie K., Michigan, Lean Left
“We’re not going to sell our soul. We’re not foolish.”
- Pipaluk Lynge, Greenlandic politician
“Begin the process in Danish law of becoming independent, and negotiate directly with the United States for American military and financial support.”
- Vittus Qujaukitsoq, Greenlandic politician
“Stronger cooperation” with the US, but sovereignty is “non‑negotiable”
- Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen
Public Opinion: Greenlanders tend to oppose a US acquisition, but also generally support independence from Denmark. Results vary from source to source.
“85% of Greenlanders do not want to leave the Danish Realm and become part of the United States” - Verian, 2025
“A new poll shows that 84% of Greenlanders want their homeland to be independent from Denmark.” - Euractiv, 2025
“Data from a recent survey shows that Greenlanders do not want their country to be sold, with only eight percent of respondents stating that they would want to have U.S. citizenship. Denmark was the preferred passport of the two countries, selected by 55 percent of Greenlandic respondents, while 37 percent said they did not know which they would choose.” - Statista, 2025
“Our survey finds that [57.3%] of Greenlandic residents support joining the United States. During the time that this poll was conducted, Donald Trump Jr. made a visit to Greenland.” Patriot Polling, Jan. 2025
🎥 Conservative YouTuber Nick Shirley went to Greenland last year and asked locals about a potential US takeover. Hear what they had to say.
3. How have past US leaders tried to utilize Greenland’s strategic importance?
Trump’s not the first US leader to covet the island.
The rest of this blog is for Sustaining Members only.
The US may have acquired it in 1868, if the deal brokered for Alaska a year earlier by then-Secretary of State William Seward for $7.2 million hadn’t been “politically branded” and “popularly known as ‘Seward’s Folly.’”
On top of widespread negative feelings toward then-President Andrew Johnson, many Americans saw Alaska as a “barren wasteland.” But its plentiful oil and gas reserves soon proved extremely valuable as the fossil fuel age dawned, and its proximity to Russia ended up being a huge advantage in the Cold War. Today, Greenland could play a similar role as a reserve of rare earth minerals (the equivalent of oil for the digital age) and a bulwark against Russian missiles launched over the Atlantic. A few other attempts and strategic usages followed:
1910: the US Ambassador to Denmark wrote a letter to the US State Department proposing to acquire Greenland and the West Indies under a complex land exchange that included Germany. Ultimately, the US dismissed the idea, but later in 1917 signed a treaty with Denmark for the West Indies, renaming them the US Virgin Islands.
World War II: When Nazi forces overran Denmark in April of 1940, Greenland was left defenseless and separated from the Danish government. In April 1941, the US signed a defense agreement to assume responsibility for protecting Greenland from Germany. The agreement was one of the US’ first overseas deployments of the war, as the troops sent there built bases, guarded resources, and covertly attacked German weather stations on Greenland’s coast.
Cold War: As described by the Associated Press in a 1991 article, in 1946 the Truman administration proposed to pay Denmark $100 million in gold (worth roughly $1.66 billion in today’s market) to purchase Greenland. According to the National Archives, this proposal was “Top Secret,” as then-Secretary of State James F. Byrnes urged Danish Foreign Minister Gustav Rasmussen to “defer taking any steps that might result in leaks and consequent publicity.”
Initially, the proposal merely added security agreements following World War II, but evolved into buying the land outright for the $100 million in gold. It’s still unknown whether Denmark denied or just let the issue die out without providing an answer.
4. How much could a Greenland purchase cost?
As for the would-be price tag, officials and scholars have speculated widely.
NBC News (Lean Left) reported that “three people familiar with the cost estimate” said the territory could cost up to $700 billion.
David Barker, a former economist at the New York Fed, told The New York Times (Lean Left) it could cost between $12.5 billion and $77 billion.
The American Action Forum, a DC-based think tank, said its estimates range from $186 billion to $4.4 trillion.
5. How would a Greenland purchase affect the economy?
Greenland wouldn’t bring immediate profit to the US. As Trump has previously pointed out, it actually costs Denmark money at the moment. Earlier this month, Euronews (Center) succinctly wrote:
“Greenland is not rich in the conventional sense. Its economy is small, heavily dependent on fisheries, and it survives largely on an annual block grant from Denmark of about DKK 3.9bn (€520mn), equivalent to roughly €9,000 per resident per year.
According to the World Bank, Greenland's gross domestic product is estimated at around $3.5–4bn (€3.2–3.7bn), serving a population of roughly 56,000 people. Around 90% of exports derive from fishery-related products.”
The main financial appeal is long-term security provided by Greenland’s resource reserves.
6. How would this affect NATO and transatlantic defense?
Since 1951, the Defense of Greenland Agreement has given the US extensive defense rights over the island without questioning or infringing upon Danish sovereignty.
Previously, though, several world leaders had expressed concerns that US control of Greenland would cause disruptions within NATO. Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen and other European leaders issued a joint statement saying Trump’s rhetoric on taking the territory could “undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral.”
Talking Points and a Range of Views…:
If you’re having a conversation about Greenland, consider who you might be talking to:
Strategic Realist: See Greenland’s location and expansive territory as critical to US national defense.
Transactionalist: Interested in possible financial benefits of acquiring Greenland.
Decolonialist: Focused on Denmark’s and Greenlanders’ opposition to US ownership.
Internationaist: Worried that global alliances will be disrupted.
.jpg)
.png)
