Here’s why it’s hard for Trump to acquire Greenland – and what’s at stake
-
Nate Iglehart Staff writer
As Donald Trump prepares to take the oath of office as president Jan. 20, he and his advisers have already been staking out policy moves. But few have raised eyebrows quite as much as his comments regarding the acquisition of Greenland.
In a Dec. 22 announcement naming his ambassador to Denmark, Mr. Trump wrote that “The United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.”
Why We Wrote This
President-elect Donald Trump’s idea to acquire Greenland comes as the Arctic region grows in strategic importance for economic and military reasons. He’s already meeting resistance.
Mr. Trump’s interest “boils down to three things,” says Otto Svendsen, an associate fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Greenland’s geostrategic position in the Atlantic Ocean,” where it sits along the shortest path a ballistic missile could take between Russia and the U.S.; “deterring Russian and Chinese presence in the Arctic at large; and ... its access to critical resources.”
The U.S. has tried to purchase Greenland before, with President Harry Truman’s administration offering $100 million in 1946 and Mr. Trump floating the idea in 2019.
While the island has a degree of domestic autonomy, Greenland has been largely under Denmark’s control since 1814. Most Greenlanders want independence from Denmark, but becoming a U.S. overseas territory or state is not the end goal, Prime Minister Múte Egede has said.
As Donald Trump prepares to take the oath of office as president Jan. 20, he and his advisers have already been staking out policy moves. But few have raised eyebrows quite as much as his comments regarding the acquisition of Greenland.
In a Dec. 22 announcement naming his ambassador to Denmark, Mr. Trump wrote that “The United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.” The idea seems to many outlandish, and the leaders of both Denmark and Greenland itself are rejecting it. Mr. Trump’s statement framed his reasons, namely “For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World.”
“I think it boils down to three things” for Mr. Trump, says Otto Svendsen, an associate fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “Greenland’s geostrategic position in the Atlantic Ocean,” where it sits along the shortest path a ballistic missile could take between Russia and the U.S.; “deterring Russian and Chinese presence in the Arctic at large; and, I think perhaps most poignantly with the broader economic goals of the Trump administration, its access to critical resources.”
Why We Wrote This
President-elect Donald Trump’s idea to acquire Greenland comes as the Arctic region grows in strategic importance for economic and military reasons. He’s already meeting resistance.
The island has vast natural resources, including lithium, platinum, and graphite, that are vital to “everything from the energy transition, analog development, and various military applications [to] electronic applications,” Mr. Svendsen says. Additionally, Greenland has access to billions of barrels of untapped oil deposits.
Perhaps in keeping with his past as a real estate executive, Mr. Trump may also be driven partly by a desire to secure his legacy by expanding the United States, something that a source told Reuters he often talks about.
Are there historical parallels for this saga?
Purchasing new lands is something the U.S. is very accustomed to.
The U.S. has even tried to purchase Greenland before, with President Harry Truman’s administration offering $100 million in 1946 and Mr. Trump himself floating the idea in 2019. As far back as the 1860s, an acquisition was explored by the same Secretary of State William Seward who engineered the Alaska purchase.
“Even when it uses force, [the U.S.] likes to buy,” says David Ekbladh, a professor of history at Tufts University. One prominent example is with the Mexican-American War. “We push Mexico into a war, ... we demand territory, and then we purchase,” explains Dr. Ekbladh. That action, known as the Gadsden Purchase, which was finalized in 1854, brought parts of modern-day New Mexico and Arizona into the union.
But in his eyes, Mr. Trump’s Greenland aspirations are “a little bit more like Panama,” with the strategic canal there being another target of Mr. Trump’s recent ambitions.
Once a province of Colombia, Panama became a case in which “The U.S. stirs the pot with a group of people that want to break away and uses that as a lever” to gain control, says Dr. Ekbladh. After Panama’s independence, the U.S. signed a 1903 treaty gaining access to a 10-mile wide strip of land for the future Panama Canal.
Greenland’s government, led by Prime Minister Múte Egede, has long pushed for eventual independence, in a loose parallel to Panama’s case.
Mr. Trump and his son, Donald Trump Jr., who took a private trip Jan. 7 to Greenland, seem to be echoing that strategy, with the former posting to the social platform Truth Social, “[The Greenlanders] and the Free World, need safety, security, strength, and PEACE! This is a deal that must happen. MAGA. MAKE GREENLAND GREAT AGAIN!”
Who would decide Greenland’s fate?
While the island has a degree of domestic autonomy, Greenland has been largely under Denmark’s control since 1814. Denmark still controls Greenland’s foreign and defense policies.
It is important to note that, as part of the complicated history, the U.S. agreed to let go of potential territorial claims in Greenland when it purchased the Danish West Indies (now the U.S. Virgin Islands) from Denmark in 1917.
However, Denmark’s 2009 Act on Greenland Self-Government “clearly stipulates that the future of Greenland is up to the people of Greenland, and the government in Copenhagen is very adamant about upholding that piece of legislation,” says Mr. Svendsen. “I think they’ve had to strike a very delicate balance between asserting themselves towards these very aggressive claims by President Trump, and at the same time sort of upholding the democratic legitimacy of Greenland and what they have politically committed themselves to from this 2009 self-government act.”
When it comes to what Greenlanders think, there is a similar balance. Most residents want independence from Denmark, at the very least. The idea of being a U.S. overseas territory or state akin to Puerto Rico or Guam is not the end goal, a point that Mr. Egede and Greenland’s Finance Minister Erik Jensen have expressed.
Yet for Greenland, independence could raise questions of how to replace a block grant from Copenhagen, which provides about $500 million a year toward basic government services.
Mr. Svendsen says one potential path toward a greater U.S. role would be for Americans, in exchange for certain concessions, to make a compelling financial offer to the people of Greenland.
That could take the form of a “free association” agreement similar to what the U.S. has with the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau in the Pacific Ocean. But again, the people of Greenland haven’t embraced that goal.
What would the diplomatic consequences be if the U.S. acquired Greenland?
Mr. Trump has long clashed with European Union nations over everything from trade to defense, and this seems to be another flashpoint that plays into the broader deterioration of U.S.-EU relations.
The Trump administration’s “America first” foreign policy strategy values projecting strength. The hope may be that assertive words yield at least some concessions. But Greenland already provides an air base to the U.S., and is open to more economic dealmaking.
Some experts say Mr. Trump’s efforts risk backfiring if they alienate longtime partners, including people in Greenland.
When it comes to resources, a 2023 survey showed that “25 of 34 minerals deemed ‘critical raw materials’ by the European Commission were found in Greenland.” A U.S. claim on those resources may exacerbate tensions between the U.S. and the EU, as both have interests in the Arctic.
Mr. Trump has made a point of not ruling out the use of military force to acquire Greenland. Any such action would be incendiary – in part because Denmark is part of the NATO alliance (as is the U.S., of course) and by the organization’s charter an attack on one member of the alliance is considered an attack on all.
Why are nations so interested in controlling the Arctic?
“Climate change is opening up the Arctic in a way where things are more accessible,” says Dr. Ekbladh. “That creates a new landscape for competition.” As ice caps recede, places once impassable are now turning into potentially lucrative trade routes, especially when paired with the vast sources of oil and minerals that will also become increasingly less expensive to harvest as the region warms.
In 2021, China stated plans for a “Polar Silk Road,” eyeing both the mineral deposits and the potential new shipping lanes that could appear, and has close ties with Arctic power Russia.
Acquiring Greenland would be a way for the Trump administration to push back against China, something that has been a primary foreign policy objective for Mr. Trump, says Dr. Ekbladh.
