_THE HISTORY_
Greenland, the world’s largest island, now exists as the center of the geopolitical struggle between the United States and its adversaries. It has been under Danish control since 1721, when Denmark asserted its sovereignty over the island through colonial settlement, later formalizing its authority as part of the Danish state.
Its relationship with Denmark has long been uneasy. Just last September, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen apologized for a population-control program in the 1960s and ’70s that saw Danish doctors secretly fit thousands of Inuit women and girls — some as young as 12 — with IUDs.
Denmark’s previous apologies followed revelations that Danish authorities had removed children from their families to be “re-educated” in Copenhagen in the 1950s. Against that backdrop, it’s not surprising that polls now consistently show majority support in Greenland for independence.
Enter the United States.
The US explored acquiring Greenland as early as the 1860s, and seriously considered it again after World War II. President Harry Truman formally offered $100 million in gold to Denmark in 1946, but Copenhagen rejected the offer. During the Cold War, Greenland became a forward operating base against the Soviet Union, with its vast airspace and proximity to Moscow making it indispensable for early-warning radar and missile defense.
Now, President Donald Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland reflects the recognition that the Arctic is a frontline in a great-power struggle with Russia and China.
_GREENLAND’S VALUE_
As Greenland’s ice melts, the island’s value grows. It is home to some of the largest rare-earth mineral deposits on the planet, making it a necessity for the continued production of goods critical to military and commercial use and reducing reliance on China, which currently owns vast swaths of the world’s mineral deposits.
The melting ice is opening previously inaccessible sea lanes, allowing for expanded naval access. Free use of these shipping lanes would allow the United States to project power and solidify its access to trade routes that its adversaries could otherwise dominate.
Further, Russia has rebuilt its Arctic bases. China has declared itself a “near-Arctic state” — a political designation used to justify its expanding presence in the region.
Greenland sits uncomfortably close to America’s enemies. Because it lies within the Western Hemisphere — dominated by the US under the Monroe Doctrine — acquiring Greenland would expand American territory, resources, and reach at a time when rival powers are jockeying for dominance.
Simply put, whoever owns Greenland vastly expands their power.
President Trump also views Greenland as essential for the Golden Dome missile-defense system because its geography allows earlier detection and interception of Russian and Chinese missiles over the Arctic. However, the US already operates a base on the island, though it exists under Danish sovereignty, meaning its expansion and use depend on approval from Copenhagen.
The Golden Dome system is also heavily space-based, with ground sites not even necessarily needed in Greenland (though Denmark would likely approve whatever the US asked for). Some analysts note that Greenland's role is valuable for Arctic monitoring but not indispensable for the system's architecture.
_THE PROBLEM OF OWNERSHIP_
Denmark has made clear it has no interest in selling the island, viewing it as a challenge to its sovereignty and a precedent Europe is unwilling to accept. Across the continent, officials are bristling at the idea of the United States treating European territory as an asset to be transferred, fearing it would expose Europe’s diminishing control over its own periphery.
Meanwhile, President Trump maintains that it would be “unacceptable” for Greenland to be “in the hands” of any other country. The price tag for the island is estimated to be around $700 billion.
Q: Isn't this just another ploy to take attention off other issues like ICE fights, Venezuela, Ukraine, Israel, etc. — Smitti from New York
A: These issues are not entirely separate. Immigration enforcement, energy security, Arctic control, and great-power rivalry all stem from the same doctrine: reducing dependence on America’s adversaries and reasserting law, order, and American power.
Q: A Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee said the US already has full access through a treaty with Denmark. Is this true? — Scott from Washington
A: The US does have extensive rights under agreements with Denmark, but access is not ownership, and treaties can be renegotiated under political pressure. Trump’s view is that permanent strategic assets should not hinge on European politics or Greenlandic activism, which is vulnerable to foreign influence.
President Trump has also been more transparent in his thinking — or his psychology in dealmaking — recently. “My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me,” is what he said about the limits of American foreign policy. On Greenland, he argues that treaties are no substitute for ownership and that the US will never fully commit to using the territory militarily so long as control rests with another sovereign.
_THE RESOURCE WAR_
Greenland holds large deposits of rare earth elements — materials essential for missiles, satellites, EVs, radar systems, and advanced electronics. Today, China dominates global rare-earth processing.
US intelligence assessments have warned that Chinese state-backed firms view Greenland as one of the few places capable of breaking Beijing’s monopoly. Several projects were halted only after American diplomatic pressure.
Q: What is the true relationship between Denmark and Greenland? Who can approve a sale? — Dave from Indiana
A: Any transfer of sovereignty would require approval from both Greenland’s government and Denmark’s parliament.
Trump and Congress are more keen to purchase the island than to take it by force, which only nine percent of Americans would support. The president's talk of seizing Greenland militarily is likely just a (very Trumpian) negotiating tactic.
Q: Have our relations with Greenland changed in recent years? Has there recently been more foreign encroachment in Greenland? — Janet from Texas
A: The big change was President Trump believing that Greenland should be, and could be America’s. That change in thinking was the tectonic shift. Since then, America’s relationship with Greenland and Denmark has definitely deteriorated.
As Trump has grown more serious, especially by saying that military involvement is not off the table, Europe and NATO have also grown more nervous. Personally, we think Trump is just being a classic negotiator and starting the conversation from a position of leverage.
The vast majority of Greenland’s tiny population doesn’t want to become America’s property, either through acquisition or through conquest. Denmark’s democratic socialist government already foots the bill for all of Greenland’s financial issues.
Aside from all of that, worsening relations with Russia and China, the melting of polar ice, and America’s lack of ability to process rare earth metals — all of these changing factors have made Greenland much more attractive to America than ever before.
_TRUMP’S LEGACY_
The president’s push for Greenland is ultimately an attempt to lock in America’s global advantage for decades to come. Like the annexation of Texas — which was widely opposed at the time, including by then-Congressman Abraham Lincoln, yet later recognized as an unambiguous positive for the country — this is a move aimed less at Trump’s short-term popularity than the long-term strength of the United States.
Though the president is taking slings and arrows from the media, Democrats, and even many Republicans, a move to acquire Greenland could ultimately rank among the most consequential geopolitical decisions in modern American history. The nation could reap Greenland’s strategic and economic fruits, while Trump secures a new chapter in America’s Manifest Destiny as part of his enduring legacy.
