President-elect Donald Trump has reignited his fascination with acquiring Greenland, labeling it an “absolute necessity” for US national security. Speaking at a press conference in Florida on Tuesday, Trump refused to rule out military action to secure the mineral-rich Arctic territory.
Trump Jr’s visit, though labeled a “private trip,” has drawn speculation about whether it was meant to gauge public sentiment or facilitate informal discussions. Local Greenlandic representatives, however, declined to meet with him, asserting their sovereignty over the island.
Trump’s bold rhetoric isn’t new but has escalated dramatically in recent weeks. At the press conference, he cast doubt on Denmark’s legal right to the island, saying, “People really don’t even know if Denmark has any legal right to [Greenland], but if they do, they should give it up because we need it for national security.” This rhetoric, combined with Trump Jr.’s visit, has heightened geopolitical tensions and sparked outrage among US allies.
We need Greenland for national security purposes.
US President-elect Donald Trump
Why Greenland?
Greenland’s allure lies in its strategic location and resource wealth. The largest island in the world, it occupies a critical position between North America and Europe and has become increasingly vital as the Arctic warms four times faster than the rest of the planet. The melting ice is exposing untapped reserves of rare earth minerals, oil, and natural gas, resources that Trump and others view as essential to reducing US reliance on foreign suppliers like China.
Additionally, Greenland hosts the US military’s Thule Air Base, a critical installation for missile detection and space monitoring. Trump’s comments underscore growing US concerns about Arctic geopolitics, where Russia and China have ramped up their presence, turning the region into a new frontier for global competition.
The island also serves as a geopolitical linchpin, controlling access to Arctic shipping routes that are becoming navigable due to climate change. This could significantly shorten trade routes between Europe and Asia, enhancing Greenland’s economic and strategic value.
Despite these advantages, Greenland remains underdeveloped. Its economy is heavily reliant on fishing and subsidies from Denmark, while its infrastructure is sparse. Local leaders, including Greenlandic Prime Minister Mute Egede, have pushed for greater autonomy and eventual independence. Egede dismissed Trump’s rhetoric as “hysteria,” emphasizing that Greenland’s future lies in the hands of its people.
How much would it cost the US to buy Greenland?
- The question of what it would cost for the US to buy Greenland is as complex as the island’s geopolitical significance. Historical precedents provide a starting point: in 1946, President Harry Truman proposed purchasing Greenland for $100 million in gold—equivalent to about $1.3 billion today. However, the contemporary valuation is far higher, reflecting the island’s strategic location, untapped resources, and growing importance in the Arctic.
- Economists and analysts have offered speculative estimates ranging from hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars. The Financial Times has suggested that Greenland could be valued at $1.1 trillion due to its rare earth minerals and resource potential. Another estimate, based on Greenland’s landmass compared to Alaska’s 1867 purchase price of $7.2 million, would put the cost at $230 million—but this figure does not account for inflation, modern resource valuations, or geopolitical stakes, a Daily Mail report said.
- More realistic calculations factor in the cost of developing Greenland’s economy and infrastructure. The US would likely need to invest heavily in mining, energy, and social services to integrate the territory. This could push the price tag to $1.5 trillion or more, making it one of the most expensive acquisitions in history.
- There are also questions of compensation for Greenland’s 57,000 residents, who would likely demand a say in any transfer of sovereignty. Proposals to offer direct payments to residents—ranging from $100,000 to $1 million per person—could add $5.7 billion to $57 billion to the total cost.
- However, the financial cost is only part of the equation. Any attempt to acquire Greenland would require navigating international law, treaties, and significant diplomatic hurdles. Denmark and Greenland’s leaders have consistently rejected the idea of a sale, and any US attempt to force the issue would likely damage its relationships with key allies, including Nato partners.
What they’re saying
- The global response to Trump’s Greenland fixation has been swift and varied.
- Danish Prime Minister
Mette Frederiksen reiterated that “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders” and called Trump’s idea absurd. - Frederiksen, in a measured tone, said, “It is positive that there is a growing American interest in what is happening in the North Atlantic and the Arctic region… But it will have to happen in a way that is respectful of the Greenlandic people.”
- “It’s bananas. It’s insane,” said Democratic Representative Jim Himes, summing up the reaction among many US lawmakers.
- Greenlandic leaders, including Egede, have dismissed Trump’s rhetoric as a distraction from their path toward full independence.
- Trump’s comments have also drawn skepticism from experts. Geoff Dabelko, an environmental security professor, highlighted Greenland’s critical role in global geopolitics, stating, “The world’s largest island is now central to geopolitical, geoeconomic competition in many ways.” However, he noted that any US attempt to acquire Greenland would face significant legal, diplomatic, and political hurdles.
As always, the firm principle applies… that borders must not be moved by force.
German government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit
A revival of manifest destiny?
In addition to Greenland, he has floated the idea of bringing Canada into the US as its 51st state and even suggested renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America.” While many of these comments are dismissed as hyperbole, they align with his unconventional approach to foreign policy, which has often upended diplomatic norms.
For Trump, Greenland represents more than a strategic acquisition; it is part of a broader vision of American resurgence. His comments about Greenland, alongside his rhetoric about the Panama Canal and even Canada, signal a return to 19th-century notions of territorial expansion. Critics argue that such ambitions are out of step with modern geopolitics, where multilateralism and respect for sovereignty have become the norm.
Yet Trump’s allies view his Arctic ambitions as a bold strategy to secure America’s future. “This isn’t just about Greenland,” one senior adviser said. “It’s about positioning America to lead in the 21st century.”
As Trump prepares to take office, the world is watching closely. Whether his comments on Greenland translate into concrete policy or remain a rhetorical flourish, they have already reshaped the global conversation about America’s role in the Arctic—and its willingness to challenge the status quo in pursuit of its national interests.
What’s next?
- The controversy over Greenland is unlikely to fade. Trump’s administration will likely prioritize Arctic policy, including expanding US military presence and securing access to strategic resources.
- However, any attempt to acquire Greenland faces formidable obstacles. Denmark’s and Greenland’s leaders have categorically rejected the idea of a sale.
- Legal and diplomatic challenges would make such a transaction nearly impossible under international law.
- The move would also face domestic opposition, with critics questioning its cost, practicality, and ethical implications.
- As climate change reshapes the Arctic, Greenland’s significance will only grow. For now, Trump’s rhetoric remains just that—words without action. But his remarks have reignited debates about Arctic strategy, sovereignty, and the role of small nations in great power competition.
(With inputs from agencies)
