With the exception of a canceled state visit to Denmark, Donald Trump faced a lot of ridicule when he first made an offer to purchase Greenland in 2019. Fast forward six times and Trump’s renewed “bid” for the nation’s largest beach is back on the table.
And that too with renewed strength. In an interview on January 7, the approaching US leader refused to rule out the use of force to take ownership of Greenland and he dispatched his brother, Don Jr,” and several associates” there on January 8, 2025, to emphasize his sincerity. Money may not be a hindrance to any offer that Trump envisages, especially with Elon Musk taking over the plan.
Trump is not the first US politician to attempt to get Greenland. The island’s first acquisition test dates again to 1868, the first time it has been documented.
The next significant efforts since Trump was made by the 1946 administration’s president, Harry S. Truman. Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland hence continues a long line of geographical expansion efforts by the United States.
Trump’s most recent bet is less absurd today than it may have appeared again in 2019 even without this historical background. On the one hand, Greenland is extremely rich in so-called” important materials”. According to a 2024 record in the Scholar, the area has known reserves of 43 out of 50 of these nutrients. According to the US Department of Energy, these minerals are necessary for “technologies that create, transmit, store and preserve power” and have” a higher risk of supply chain disruption”.
Given that China, a major distributor of a number of crucial nutrients to international markets, has been putting more restrictions on its imports as part of an ongoing business dispute with the US, this is undoubtedly a valid concern. Washington would have more control over the supply chain and lessen any utilize that China might have to exert. Having access to Greenland’s solutions.
Strategic price
Greenland’s corporate location also makes it valuable to the US. Pituffik Space Base, a well-established US center, is crucial to US weapon protection and early warning and is important for space surveillance. The base’s future growth may also improve US ability to track Russian naval activities in the Arctic Ocean and the northern Atlantic.
US autonomy over Greenland, if Trump’s deal comes to pass, do likewise properly buckle any goes by rivals, especially China, to get a grip on the island. If Greenland is still a member of NATO, which has provided the island with an quarterly grant of about US$ 500 million, this may be less of a issue.
Greenland’s freedom – assistance for which has been gradually growing – may open the door to more, and less controlled, foreign purchase. In this situation, China is perceived as especially eager to step in if the chance arises.
Add to that the growing security assistance between Russia and China and the fact that Russia has typically become more physically violent, and Trump’s case appears to be even more reliable. He is not the only one to raise the alarm: Canada, Denmark, and Norway have all recently reacted to the growing Russian and Chinese presence in the Arctic.
The issue with Trump’s proposal is not that it is based on a flawed assessment of the underlying issue it attempts to address. In a time when geopolitical rivalry is waning, Russia’s and China’s influence in the Arctic region is generally a security issue. In this context, Greenland unquestionably poses a particular and significant security risk to the United States.
The flaws in Trump’s plan
The problem is Trump’s” America first” tunnel vision of looking for a solution. insisting that he wants Greenland and that he will receive it, even if that means imposing high tariffs on Danish exports ( think Novo Nordisk’s weight-loss drugs ) or imposing force.
Predictably, Greenland and Denmark rejected the new “offer”. And key allies, including France and Germany, rushed to their ally’s defense – figuratively for now.
Rather than strengthening US security, Trump is arguably effectively weakening it by, yet again, undermining the western alliance. The irony of doing so in the north Atlantic does not only seem to be lost on Trump, This kind of territorial expansionism, which is representative of Trump’s isolationist tendencies, also seems to be a more fundamental issue at play here.
” Incorporating” Greenland into the US would likely shield Washington from the collapse of crucial mineral supply chains and keep Russia and China at bay. Beyond the kind of bluster and bombast that are typically associated with Trump, and signaling that he will do it whatever the cost, is an indication that his approach to foreign policy will quickly wear off with any gloves.
Trump and his team may believe that the US can get away with this by strengthening security cooperation with Denmark and the rest of its NATO and European allies in the Arctic and beyond. Given that what is at stake here are relations with the United States ‘ hitherto closest allies, this is an enormous, and unwarranted, gamble.
No great power in history has ever been able to go it alone forever, and even taking control of Greenland by hook or by crook is unlikely to reverse this.
Stefan Wolff is a University of Birmingham professor of international security.
The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.