Jonah Goldberg: Greenland is a strategic asset, but Trump’s approach undermines the idea
The suggestion that the United States should acquire Greenland is not new. In fact, it’s a serious idea with significant strategic value. However, pursuing it in an unserious manner—such as through provocative rhetoric or threats—risks doing more harm than good.Donald Trump’s fixation on Greenland has sparked widespread ridicule since he first floated the idea during his presidency. While his critics were quick to mock him, it’s worth noting that Greenland’s location and resources make it a valuable asset. The question is not whether the U.S. should pursue Greenland, but how such an endeavour should be approached.
Why greenland matters
Greenland, the world’s largest island, holds immense strategic significance. Its location in the Arctic places it at the heart of the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap, a critical choke point for naval access to the North Atlantic. This is why military strategists, including former NATO Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis, view Greenland as a key element in countering Russian naval activity.Moreover, Greenland is believed to contain vast deposits of rare-earth minerals, which are essential for high-tech industries. China currently dominates the global market for these resources, creating a pressing need for diversification. Securing access to Greenland’s mineral wealth would bolster U.S. and allied industries while reducing dependence on China.Historically, the Truman administration recognised Greenland’s value and sought to purchase it from Denmark, which administers the island. Although Denmark declined, the subsequent formation of NATO ensured close cooperation between the two nations. Today, the U.S. maintains a vital military installation at Thule Air Base in Greenland, further underscoring its importance to Western defence.
Trump’s provocative approach
Despite these strategic considerations, Trump’s handling of the issue has been far from diplomatic. In a recent press conference, he refused to rule out the use of force to take Greenland, even linking it to national security and global freedom. He also raised eyebrows by suggesting an outrageous trade—swapping Puerto Rico for Greenland.While some defenders of Trump’s rhetoric argue that it’s merely a negotiating tactic, such an approach risks alienating key allies. Denmark and Greenland already cooperate closely with the U.S. on security matters, so threatening military action is both unnecessary and counterproductive.For Trump, whose career as a real estate mogul has often revolved around bold proposals and brand-building, Greenland may seem like just another prize to acquire. But geopolitics is not the same as a property deal, and treating it as such risks undermining U.S. credibility.
The risks of recklessness
Acquiring Greenland, if pursued recklessly, could have disastrous consequences. Any aggressive action—such as deploying ships to intimidate Denmark—would likely shatter NATO, a cornerstone of Western defence. Ironically, this would play directly into Vladimir Putin’s hands, as the alliance’s collapse would weaken deterrence against Russian aggression.Trump’s approach also exposes a troubling contradiction. For years, his supporters have criticised “neocon” conservatives for provoking foreign wars in the name of abstract goals like freedom. Yet Trump’s own rhetoric—threatening democratic allies over Greenland—echoes the same imperialist overtones they claim to oppose.
More Read
A better way forward
The idea of acquiring Greenland deserves serious consideration, but it must be pursued through diplomacy, not threats. For instance, a leasing agreement for rare-earth mining could be explored, or expanded security cooperation could further strengthen ties with Greenland and Denmark.Such negotiations require patience, respect, and a recognition of shared interests. Greenland’s quasi-independent status under Denmark means that any deal would need to address the concerns of both the Danish government and Greenland’s residents. Heavy-handed tactics would only provoke resistance and damage relations with two longstanding allies.
Conclusion
Greenland’s strategic and economic potential makes it an attractive proposition for the United States. However, any effort to acquire it must be conducted thoughtfully and peacefully. Trump’s bombastic rhetoric and transactional mindset risk turning a serious idea into a farcical one, undermining both U.S. interests and its reputation on the global stage.In the end, acquiring Greenland is about more than land—it’s about safeguarding the future. But to do so effectively, the U.S. must act with the seriousness and responsibility befitting a global leader, not the recklessness of a dealmaker seeking his next trophy.
