On January 7th, at a press conference held at Mar-a-Lago in Florida, President-elect Trump reiterated his intention to acquire Greenland and refused to rule out military action to achieve this goal. This statement immediately sparked debates across the U.S. and globally. Trump’s remarks led to varied responses from different parties.
During the press conference, when asked if he could rule out using military or economic threats to acquire Greenland and the Panama Canal, Trump stated, “I can’t guarantee either of these.”
“I’m not making any promises. You may need to do something now,” Trump said. “But I can say this, we need them to ensure (America’s) economic security.”
While Trump excluded the possibility of using military force against Canada, he suggested that Canada should become the 51st state, but economic power would be sought for dealing with Canada.
Trump criticized the control of the Panama Canal by communist China and expressed regrets over the U.S. government handing it over to Panama over two decades ago.
Regarding Greenland, Trump stated that the U.S. “needs it for national security reasons” due to Russian and communist Chinese ships being “all over the place” in the waters nearby in the Arctic region.
Trump mentioned that he had been informed about this even before running for President. He questioned Denmark’s rights to Greenland and insisted that if Denmark does have rights, they should give it up because the U.S. needs it to maintain national security.
If Denmark refuses to give up Greenland, Trump pledged to impose tariffs on Denmark.
Historically, Greenland has been controlled by Denmark but gained local autonomy in 1979 and semi-independence in 2009, with the Danish government controlling defense, security, and foreign policy.
In his first term, President Trump had also expressed interest in buying Greenland, believing it to be crucial for U.S. national security.
The U.S. has a military base on Greenland, the Pituffik Space Base. With the melting ice leading to new routes opening, the U.S. has been focused on countering Chinese and Russian vessels in the Arctic.
China has invested in various economic sectors in Greenland. Greenland possesses key rare minerals essential for industries like electric vehicles, including rare earths, as the U.S. aims to reduce dependence on Chinese minerals.
When Trump held the press conference on January 7th, his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., had already flown to Greenland on his private jet, “Trump One.”
After Donald Trump Jr.’s arrival in Greenland, Trump posted on his Truth Social media platform, “Don Jr. and my representatives have landed in Greenland and received a very warm welcome. They (the people of Greenland) and the free world need security, protection, strength, and peace! This is a deal that must happen. Make America great again (MAGA). Make Greenland great again!”
Trump also posted a video of “Trump One” landing in the icy terrain below this post.
Donald Jr. posted on X, “Greenland is heating up… Well, actually, it’s really really cold!” In this post, he also shared a video showing the plane flying over the frozen Arctic terrain.
“It’s beautiful in Greenland!!!” he added in another post on X.
When Donald Jr. met with some Greenlanders, Trump called them on the phone, describing Greenland as “a very special place” needing security and defense for itself and the world.
Trump assured the Greenlanders on the phone, saying, “We will take care of you.”
An insider had confirmed earlier that Donald Jr. planned to visit Greenland for a quick one-day trip, shooting some interesting video content for his podcast.
On the evening of January 6th, Trump stated on Truth Social that his eldest son would visit Greenland, saying, “I hear the people of Greenland are ‘MAGA.'”
In this post, he added, “My son Don and several delegates are going to visit some of the most magnificent areas and sites there. Greenland is an incredible place, and the people there would benefit immensely if it becomes part of our country.”
“We will protect it, cherish it, and shield it from external threats. Make Greenland great again!”
By nominating Ken Howery as the U.S. Ambassador to Denmark at the end of last year, Trump emphasized the necessity of owning and controlling Greenland for the national security and freedom of nations worldwide.
The U.S. has long proposed acquiring Greenland but has never made progress. The last attempt was in 1946 when the U.S. offered Denmark $100 million in gold, which was rejected.
Observers believe the U.S. is unlikely to actually purchase Greenland, but Trump’s statements have brought attention back to the island’s strategic importance and raised concerns about China and Russia’s involvement in Arctic affairs.
Rebecca Pincus, the director of the Polar Institute at the Wilson Center, a global affairs think tank, told the Congress Mountain News that the eventual outcome is still unclear and that Denmark, as a founding member of NATO, opposes selling Greenland. She finds the situation challenging.
Greenland has been strategically important for the U.S. since the Cold War, lying in the GIUK gap between Greenland, Iceland, and the U.K., crucial for aiding in curtailing the Soviet navy.
Jon Alterman, the Senior Vice President and Chair of Global Security and Geopolitics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), told the Congress Mountain News that there is a perspective that sees Greenland, like the North Atlantic, as important just because it’s important. Whether the U.S. should own it presents a separate question. Denmark has maintained that they have cooperated for over three-quarters of a century and there’s no need to change the status quo.
Alterman suggests that Trump likes to draw attention, keeping others vigilant. “This is an example of convincing people that the issues they thought were resolved are not actually resolved,” Alterman elaborated.
“Hence, even if we’re not discussing the U.S. buying Greenland next week, the current administration’s sense of dissatisfaction with the status quo will convey a message to America’s adversaries and allies that the U.S. believes the world is changing in terms of power dynamics,” added Alterman.
Daniel Fried, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and NATO policy, acknowledged that China and Russia have sought to increase their influence in the Arctic, but purchasing Greenland may not be the best solution.
He pointed out the 1951 treaty signed between the U.S. and Denmark after President Truman’s “half-hearted attempt” to buy Greenland. The agreement granted significant control to the U.S. in defending Greenland.
“That agreement has been around for a long time, people have forgotten about it, but it is real. Trump is right that the U.S. has security interests in Greenland,” stated Fried.
“I would like to know why the importance of Greenland as a vital military asset would justify the threats and bullying. Denmark has been a significant contributor to collective security,” Fried critiqued Trump’s threatening remarks.
Matt Zierler, Associate Professor of International Relations at Michigan State University, finds Trump’s threats “unbelievable.” He said, “His negotiation style is to make extreme verbal threats and then back down.” However, this approach may worsen relationships with allies.
James Rogers, Executive Director of the Tech Policy Research Institute at Cornell University’s Brooks Institution, and an expert on Greenland and Arctic affairs, stated that Denmark had neglected Greenland, and Trump was trying to strengthen its security commitments.
Rogers noted that Denmark had recently invested $1.5 billion in Greenland’s security and defense after Trump’s initial comments about Greenland, as Danish officials had discussed reducing their security funding to Greenland earlier.
He commented, “Trump has already had some successes in some of these plans,” suggesting that Trump probably seeks to increase military presence in Greenland within the tensions with Russia and China.
Rogers highlighted Trump’s potential interest in accessing resources like rare earth minerals on Greenland Island through “priority access and economic agreements.”
CSIS’s Alterman stated that Trump “likes to do things and see what the response is.”
“He (Trump) has a certain amount of willingness to try things, do things repeatedly, and then judge which approach works better. I think his method, like his rallies, is like a stand-up comedian honing his act. He wants to elicit a response. He will observe people’s reactions and then adjust,” Alterman explained.
While experts see the likelihood of the U.S. purchasing Greenland as low, they agree that Greenland plays a significant strategic role in the international order, with a strong U.S. presence vital for its national security objectives.
Pincus, an Arctic research expert, stressed that Greenland’s geographical location holds vital strategic significance, with the island possessing “abundant” natural resources, including rare minerals and the potentially extensive hydroelectric power of the Greenland ice sheet.
She explained that combining all these advantages with the drive for independence has led to increased interest in pushing for self-independence movements from Denmark.
Despite Trump’s strong push for acquisition, Danish and Greenlandic authorities firmly reject the idea. Romain Chuffart, Director and Executive Director of the Arctic Institute, believes that a confrontation between the U.S. and Denmark is “highly unlikely.” However, such a scenario could harm the U.S.’ international reputation.
Jim Townsend, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO policy, acknowledged that China and Russia have been seeking to increase their influence in the Arctic. Still, he mentioned that attempting to purchase Greenland is not the best way to address the issue.
He cited how the U.S. acquired Alaska from Russia in 1867 due to strategic reasons, but underlined that global dynamics have changed since then.
“If there’s an issue here, you can meet with the Greenlanders, meet with Denmark, and try to address the problems that concern the U.S.,” Townsend suggested.
U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast posted on X, advocating for Trump’s desires to place these territories under U.S. control. He expressed pride in Trump’s vision for America.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries stated he was confused by Trump’s obsession with Greenland during a speech to reporters at the Capitol, underscoring that the discussions about Greenland seemed detached from the issues affecting America’s middle class.
Long-time Democrat John Fetterman pushed back against the use of force to seize Greenland. He underscored the need for continuous dialogue and expressed openness to various discussions when acquiring foreign land.
In his viewpoint, Brandon Gill, a freshman Republican federal congressman, echoed support for Trump’s vision to place territories like Panama, Greenland, and Canada under U.S. control.
In contrast, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries questioned the relevancy of discussions on Greenland, highlighting the importance of ensuring every American can achieve the American Dream, rather than focusing on territorial acquisitions.
Sen. John Fetterman opposed using force to acquire Greenland, emphasizing the need for dialogue when purchasing foreign lands.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken, currently visiting France, expressed skepticism regarding Trump’s ambition to own Greenland, deeming it an unlikely endeavor.
Blinken emphasized the importance of supporting allies and strengthening alliances, stressing that past principles of working closely with allies yield better outcomes.
Some of Trump’s allies support his stance on acquiring Greenland and regaining control of the Panama Canal, while his opponents are critical of these ambitions.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Brian Mast posted on X, advocating for Trump’s bold vision, endorsing Trump’s aspirations for America.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries expressed confusion regarding Trump’s fixation on Greenland, emphasizing the disconnect between the pressing issues affecting America and territorial acquisitions.
Current senator John Fetterman condemned the use of force to acquire Greenland, stressing the necessity of constructive dialogue in international relations when considering land acquisitions.
These diverse perspectives reflect the ongoing debates and complexities surrounding Trump’s remarks on acquiring Greenland, intertwining national security, strategic interests, and international relationships.