Would a Greenland Acquisition Make Sense?

Commentators across the spectrum have expressed different opinions on incoming President Donald Trump’s interest in acquiring Greenland, while analyzing the feasibility and consequences of such an acquisition.

Could Be Good: The Washington Examiner (Lean Right bias) said Trump’s ambitions to acquire Greenland “peacefully” make sense and that Congress should “examine whether it would be worthwhile to offer to buy it from Denmark for an appropriate price.” The Economist (Left bias) expressed a similar stance, arguing it “could be the deal of the century,” and analyzing the current economic status of the territory.

Unnecessary Risk: Joshua Keating of Vox (Left bias) published an opinion that included ample analysis of what makes Greenland a valuable territory and argued Trump’s ambitions to take it over are risky. Keating concluded that the U.S. already “benefits from Greenland being under the jurisdiction of a friendly NATO ally” and that if Trump were hawkish militarily on Greenland, the action “could validate territorial claims by U.S. enemies,” like Russia and China.

Potential Scenarios: BBC News (Center bias), in an analysis, walked through potential scenarios the situation could play out, noting that Greenland’s Prime Minister has already openly discussed the territory wanting independence from Denmark. The BBC analyzed four total possibilities: “Trump loses interest, nothing happens,” “Greenland votes for independence, seeks closer ties with U.S.,” “Trump steps up economic pressure,” and “Trump invades Greenland,” noting that the last one is “far-fetched.”