President-elect Donald Trump has reignited his curiosity with acquiring Greenland, labeling it an “absolute prerequisite” for US national security. Trump rebuffed military activity during a media conference in Florida on Tuesday, making no mention of the mineral-rich Arctic country.
Although Trump Jr.’s visit has been described as a “private trip,” it has suss out for what purpose did it serve: facilitating informal conversations or gauging public opinion. Local Greenlandic staff, however, declined to join with him, asserting their sovereignty over the area.
Trump’s strong language isn’t new but has escalated considerably in recent months. At the press conference, he cast doubt on Denmark’s constitutional right to the beach, saying,” Folks really don’t even know if Denmark has any legal proper to]Greenland], but if they do, they may give it up because we need it for regional security”. This rhetoric, combined with Trump Jr.’s visit, has heightened geopolitical tensions and sparked outrage among US allies.
We require Greenland for purposes of national security.
US President-elect Donald Trump
Why Greenland?
Greenland’s allure lies in its strategic location and resource wealth. The largest island in the world, which is situated between North America and Europe, has grown increasingly important as the Arctic warms four times faster than the rest of the world. Untapped reserves of rare earth minerals, oil, and natural gas are being exposed by the melting ice, which Trump and others believe are necessary to reduce theUS’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 functions as a geopolitical linchpin, regulating access to Arctic shipping routes that are becoming navigable as a result of climate change. This could significantly shorten the trade routes between Europe and Asia, increasing Greenland’s economic and strategic value.
Despite these advantages, Greenland remains underdeveloped. While Denmark provides subsidies for fishing, its economy is heavily dependent on its sparse infrastructure, and its infrastructure is weak. 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 US’s purchase of Greenland would cost as much as the island’s geopolitical significance. A historical example is the one where President Harry Truman proposed purchasing Greenland for$ 100 million in gold, which is 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 provided speculative estimates that range from hundreds of billions to trillions of dollars. According to the Financial Times, Greenland’s potential for rare earth minerals and resource wealth could be valued at$ 1.1 trillion. 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 increase the purchase price to$ 1.5 trillion or more, making it one of the most expensive purchases ever made.
- 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. To navigate international law, treaties, and significant diplomatic obstacles, anyone trying to acquire Greenland would need to navigate international law, treaties, and obstacles. The leaders of Denmark and Greenland have consistently rejected the idea of a sale, and any US attempt to sever its grip would likely damage its ties with important allies, including Nato partners.
What they’re saying
- Trump’s fixation with Greenland has received a swift and diverse response from the entire world.
- 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… However, it will have to take place in a way that honors 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?
He has also suggested renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the” Gulf of America” and has also made the case for incorporating Canada into the US as its 51st state. Although many of these remarks are labeled as being overblown, they go against his unconventional approach to foreign policy, which has frequently altered diplomatic standards.
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. According to critics, these aspirations are out of step with contemporary geopolitics, where respect for sovereignty and multilateralism 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 remarks on Greenland are translated 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?
- Greenland-related controversy is unlikely to vanish. Trump’s administration will likely give Arctic policy more weight, including expanding the US military presence and ensuring 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.
- Under international law, such a transaction would be nearly impossible due to legal and diplomatic difficulties.
- 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 )
