In what may be one of the boldest and most controversial foreign policy assertions of his tenure, US President Donald Trump has again raised the prospect of “owning” Greenland, either through purchase or, as he has not ruled out, military annexation. The statement comes just weeks after the US administration’s high-profile operations in Venezuela and is part of Trump’s broader vision of asserting strategic influence over geopolitically critical regions.
Yet history—and the firm stance of local Greenlandic and Danish authorities—suggests that such ambitions may face insurmountable practical and political obstacles.
The Current Context
Trump’s latest remarks have stirred headlines across Europe and North America. According to the White House, the administration is exploring the possibility of buying Greenland from Denmark, a fellow NATO member. Trump justified the move on national security grounds, citing an alleged presence of Russian and Chinese naval vessels near the Arctic region.
Adding to the tension, the US last weekend imposed 10 percent tariffs on eight European countries, including Denmark, Norway, and the UK, citing their involvement in the “Arctic Endurance” NATO exercises in Greenland. Critics argue this is part of a broader show of US assertiveness in the Arctic, a region increasingly critical for trade routes, defense, and natural resources.
Greenland in US Historical Imagination
The idea of controlling Greenland is far from new in US foreign policy circles. Its strategic location between the United States, Europe, and Russia has made it an object of fascination for generations of American policymakers.
19th Century: Post-Alaska Ambitions
Following the US purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867, Secretary of State William H. Seward reportedly proposed acquiring Greenland and Iceland from Denmark. Former Treasury Secretary Robert J. Walker, a key figure in the Alaska deal, argued that control over Greenland would advance political influence and commercial power, giving the United States an edge in global trade.
However, no concrete steps were taken, and the idea faded into obscurity for decades.
20th Century: World War II and the Cold War
Greenland returned to the US strategic radar during World War II. When Germany invaded Denmark, the US assumed responsibility for defending Greenland, establishing a permanent military presence. By 1946, the US had even proposed a formal purchase of Greenland for $100 million in gold, offering to swap it for territories in the Philippines. Denmark rejected the offer outright.
Despite the refusal, the United States retained access to the island for military purposes. The Thule Air Base (now Pituffik Space Base) has been operational since 1943, underscoring the long-term strategic value of Greenland without actual sovereignty. During the Cold War, Greenland’s Arctic location made it a key outpost for monitoring the Soviet Union, reinforcing US interest in the territory.
21st Century: Trump’s Renewed Interest
Trump first expressed his interest in purchasing Greenland publicly in 2019, calling it a potential “large real estate deal.” Both Greenlandic and Danish authorities rejected the idea, emphasizing that the island was not for sale.
Upon beginning his second term, Trump revived the proposal, suggesting in a Mar-a-Lago conference that military options could not be ruled out. Later, addressing a joint session of Congress in 2025, he ominously stated:
“I think we’re going to get it. One way or the other, we’re going to get it.”
These statements have not been well received in Greenland or Denmark, with local leaders calling the rhetoric insulting and unrealistic.
Why a Purchase is Highly Improbable
Several practical and political factors make a Greenland “purchase” unlikely, even under Trump’s administration:
- Sovereign Opposition: Both the Danish government and Greenlandic authorities have repeatedly stated that Greenland is not for sale. Any attempt at purchase would require unanimous approval from the Greenlandic parliament (Inatsisartut) and Denmark, making a unilateral US deal virtually impossible.
- Public Sentiment in Greenland: The island’s approximately 57,000 residents view the idea of being “bought” as insulting. Former Greenlandic parliamentarian Aqqaluk Lynge said even an offer of $1 million per resident would be rejected outright: “We don’t sell our souls.”
- Strategic, Not Commercial Value: Greenland’s importance lies less in commercial potential and more in geopolitics, Arctic defense, and monitoring capabilities. The US already maintains bases on the island, which allows it strategic leverage without requiring sovereignty.
- International Norms and NATO Obligations: Greenland is a semi-autonomous Danish territory. Any attempt at annexation would not only violate Danish sovereignty but also potentially contravene international law and NATO principles, creating a diplomatic crisis with European allies.
Local and International Reaction
Greenlandic leadership has been unequivocal. Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen posted on Facebook:
“Enough is enough … No more fantasies about annexation.”
Danish authorities have similarly dismissed the idea, emphasizing that Greenland’s self-rule and the rights of its residents must be respected. Analysts suggest that even aggressive US lobbying or financial incentives are unlikely to sway either government or the public.
Internationally, Trump’s statements have prompted concern in Europe, especially given NATO’s Arctic operations and the rising presence of Russia and China in polar regions. Analysts argue that while the US may have legitimate security interests in Greenland, framing it as a “purchase” is politically sensitive and diplomatically risky.
Lessons from History
History indicates that the US has long been interested in Greenland, but attempts at outright acquisition have always failed:
- 1867: Proposal by Seward and Walker ignored.
- 1946: Truman’s $100 million gold offer rejected.
- 2019–2025: Trump’s proposals dismissed by Greenlandic and Danish authorities.
Despite these failures, the US has maintained strategic access through military bases and defense agreements, suggesting that influence, rather than ownership, has been the realistic goal all along.
Conclusion
While Trump’s rhetoric makes headlines, purchasing or annexing Greenland remains extremely unlikely. The island’s residents and Danish authorities have made it clear that sovereignty is non-negotiable, and international norms strongly protect territorial integrity.
Strategically, Greenland remains critical for Arctic operations, surveillance, and defense, and the US will continue to assert influence through military and diplomatic channels rather than formal ownership. History shows that control without annexation—through defense agreements, infrastructure, and political partnerships—has been the most feasible way for the US to secure its interests in Greenland.
As the debate continues, the proposal serves as a reminder of the Arctic’s growing geopolitical importance, the limits of US unilateral ambitions, and the enduring significance of respecting local sovereignty in global strategic planning.
Leave a Reply