Trump's Still Talking About Buying Greenland. Here's Where That's Headed.
Of all the priorities Donald Trump has set since returning to power, his fixation on Greenland has ranked among the most mystifying.
The president's insistence that the U.S. should 'own and control' the world's largest island has unsettled its inhabitants and inspired his allies to imagine it as America's 51st state. It has also raised a host of questions about why and how a possible U.S.-Greenland union could come to be.
POLITICO Magazine recently traveled to Greenland's capital, Nuuk, and came back with answers.
Well, not really. The days have long passed since you could outright purchase a huge chunk of territory from a European power in the new world. What the United States did when it purchased Alaska from Russia in the middle of the 19th century is just not in line with today's international legal norms and standards.
There's also no clear legal path toward doing so. The people of Greenland have too many rights over their own self-determination for an outright purchase. That doesn't mean that there's nothing Donald Trump can do regarding Greenland.
One of the more plausible ideas that's been gaining some traction in Trump-leaning foreign policy circles is what's called a compact of free association. This is a sort of arrangement that the United States already has with some small island nations in the Pacific. It's short of actually forming a union with Greenland — or making it a 51st state — but involves special privileges for both the U.S. and the other nation involved.
In the case of Greenland, things are a bit more complicated because for the time being, at least, Greenland is an autonomous territory of the kingdom of Denmark. That means that they have a lot of rights to self-determination, but its foreign policy is determined by Denmark.
But even for something like a free association agreement to work, there are a lot of other steps that would have to occur. First, there's a process that's been laid out for Greenland's eventual potential independence from Denmark. There would have to be a referendum in Greenland supporting independence. There's not even total agreement about exactly how that process would work. Then having achieved full independence, Greenland would then have to choose to enter into a free association agreement or some other kind of special arrangement with the United States.
Well, it's really big. It's not so far from the U.S. — it's actually 13 miles from Canada at their closest point, and it's strategically located in the Arctic. Arctic ice has been melting. Russia has become more active in that region. China, though it's not an Arctic nation, has also become more active in the Arctic. So, the United States has a military and strategic interest in having a greater presence in that part of the Arctic. There's already an important American air base in the north of the island, and in the south of the island there are deposits of rare earth minerals. As the world seems to be de-globalizing to an extent — and strategic economic blocs are forming — a source of rare earth minerals that is not in China, that's near the United States is potentially very valuable.
President Trump, so far, hasn't directly articulated those strategic goals, though some in his administration have.
The United States is an economic and military power next door. The U.S. is already guaranteeing Greenland security. A closer military relationship would cement that guarantee and trade relationship with the largest, most dynamic economy in the world. Another potential benefit would just be the right of people from Greenland to live and work in the U.S.
That being said, I was on the ground in Greenland in December, and there was not a huge amount of appetite for a big deal with the U.S. anytime soon. One researcher based in Greenland showed me a recent survey where a majority of Greenlanders said they would like to have closer relations with the U.S., but even more Greenlanders said that they'd like to have closer relations with all sorts of other countries, including Iceland and Canada.
So, if President Trump is relying on a popular groundswell in Greenland to get this deal across the finish line, he's still got some convincing to do.
Probably not.
An outright purchase or a free association agreement remains a long way off. But Donald Trump clearly has the attention of the governments of Greenland and Denmark, and so all sorts of potential measures involving greater military or economic integration could easily be on the table. There could still be some form of a deal that would see maybe more trade or better or more strategic bases in Greenland for the United States.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Amid LA deployment, Hegseth falsely attacks Tim Walz over 2020 George Floyd riots
WASHINGTON – Amid an increasingly militarized response to immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth attacked Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz for his handling of the riots prompted by George Floyd's killing in 2020. Hegseth implied that federal intervention in Los Angeles is vital to preventing scenes, such as those seen in 2020 in Minneapolis. In June 2020, President Donald Trump praised Walz for his state-controlled use of the National Guard, telling a conference call of governors, "What they did in Minneapolis was incredible. They went in and dominated, and it happened immediately." More: Marines in LA, response to Ukraine: details from Hegseth hearings Hegseth's comments came in response to a Minnesota lawmaker at a June 10 hearing before the House Armed Services Committee. He argued the former Democratic vice presidential candidate "abandoned a police precinct and allowed it to be burned to the ground' during the Black Lives Matter protests in Minneapolis. Hegseth falsely claimed that Walz waited until after the burning of Minneapolis' third police precinct building to call up the Minnesota National Guard. Walz, in fact, ordered a mass mobilization of his Guardsmen on the afternoon of May 28, 2020, several hours before the police building burned. The defense secretary, defending his decision to deploy 700 Marines and around 4,000 federalized National Guard troops to Los Angeles without the consent of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, tried to compare Walz and Newsom's respective handling of the protests. "President Trump recognizes a situation like that, improperly handled by a governor, like it was by Governor Waltz... If it gets out of control, it's a bad situation for the citizens of any location,' said Hegseth. National Guard units, most of whose troops serve part-time and maintain civilian careers, can take days to fully mobilize and deploy. Newsom has strongly condemned President Donald Trump and his administration's actions in response to the ongoing protests, and the California attorney general filed a lawsuit against the administration over the National Guard federalization on June 9. Trump has openly mused about having the governor arrested for impeding immigration enforcement. "[Marines] shouldn't be deployed on American soil facing their own countrymen to fulfill the deranged fantasy of a dictatorial President," Newsom said. More: Marine infantry unit deploying to Los Angeles amid immigration enforcement unrest The anti-ICE protests are poised to roll into their fifth day on June 10. Los Angeles officials blamed fringe groups for the violence and said more than 100 people were arrested Monday evening. Several driverless Waymo cars were set ablaze over the weekend, leading the company to suspend its autonomous taxi service in the city. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Amid Marine LA deployment, Hegseth falsely attacks Tim Walz
Miami Herald
20 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Miami commissioners cautious with answers on whether they'll vote for ICE agreement
South Florida's largest city could deputize its police officers with immigration enforcement powers later this week, adding to a growing sense of uncertainty in the region as the Trump administration carries out its full-forced crackdown on immigration. On Thursday, the Miami City Commission is scheduled to vote to enter into what's known as a 287(g) agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The city would join the 'task force' model, which allows police officers to conduct immigration enforcement functions during routine work and to question, arrest and detain people suspected of violating immigration law. However, despite the fact that the agreement is on Thursday's meeting agenda, two city commissioners told the Miami Herald that the item might be deferred for the second time. The commission previously deferred the item in April in order to postpone the vote until after the June 3 special election to replace the late Commissioner Manolo Reyes. Commissioner Joe Carollo declined to say whether he plans to vote in favor of the agreement but said he has been monitoring the protests against ICE in Los Angeles, where Trump deployed the National Guard. Asked where he stands on the 287(g) agreement, Carollo said he's 'certainly looking carefully' at Los Angeles, which he said has 'frankly been a factor in the way that I'm gonna be going at this.' Commissioner Damian Pardo said in a statement that 'as a life long advocate for a legal path for US citizenship and a supporter of TPS, I am not in favor of 287(g).' 'Regardless of how well this plan may be implemented by local enforcement agencies, and in addition to the human rights considerations, I am very concerned with the hostile climate these policies create for immigrants,' Pardo said. He added that the city's economy is boosted by the 'inflow of business from Latin America, the Caribbean and Europe.' 'Our city has benefited enormously from our attraction as a destination to the international community,' Pardo added. 'I would argue that attraction is the 'Magic' in the Magic city. Let's keep it that way.' Both Carollo and Pardo said the item would likely be deferred. READ MORE: What the end of CHNV parole program means for a half-million migrants, many in Florida The City Commission was scheduled to take its vote on June 12, which will be the first commission meeting for newly elected District 4 Commissioner Ralph Rosado. According to voting map data, over 90% of voting-age citizens in District 4 are Hispanic, meaning Rosado's district has the largest concentration of Hispanics in the city's five voting districts. Speaking at his election night watch party last week, the freshman commissioner said he hadn't decided yet how he will vote on the 287(g) agreement. 'I've been discussing it with a number of people,' Rosado said, adding that he has 'a series of legal questions' that he wants to ask the city attorney before making a decision. Commissioner Christine King, who is also the commission chairwoman, declined to comment on the ICE agreement. Reached Monday, Commissioner Miguel Angel Gabela said he would get back to the Herald at a later time with a comment. Mayor Francis Suarez, who does not have a vote on the commission but who does have veto power, did not respond to a request asking whether he supports the city entering the 287(g) agreement. A city spokesperson said Monday that it is 'too premature' to say whether the item will be deferred. She did not directly respond to questions asking if a potential deferral was related to current events like the L.A. protests or the travel ban that went into effect Monday. Municipal and local police departments are not explicitly required to join 287(g) agreements, but Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier have argued that under the state's sanctuary law, they are mandated to do so. Uthmeier threatened to punish Fort Myers City Council members earlier this year when they declined to enroll in the program. Still, most Miami-Dade cities, including Miami Beach and Miami Gardens, have yet to join the program, according to ICE's database for participating agencies. Entering the 287(g) agreement could have a major impact in Miami, where about 58% of residents are foreign born and over 70% are Hispanic or Latino, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. With just under a half-million people, Miami is the largest city in Miami-Dade County and the second largest in Florida. Miami would join a list of other Miami-Dade cities that have entered 287(g) agreements in recent months, including Hialeah, Sweetwater, Coral Gables, West Miami, Sunny Isles Beach and Miami Springs. If it happens this week, the City Commission vote would land at a time of increased uncertainty for non-citizens, with the Trump administration implementing a series of immigration policies in recent weeks that have targeted communities with large populations in South Florida. In addition to Monday's travel ban, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled late last month in favor of a Trump administration plan that ended the humanitarian parole program known as CHNV, which allowed people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to legally enter the United States. The decision affects more than 500,000 migrants who were granted temporary legal status.
WIRED
20 minutes ago
- WIRED
The ‘Long-Term Danger' of Trump Sending Troops to the LA Protests
Jun 10, 2025 12:24 PM President Trump's deployment of more than 700 Marines to Los Angeles—following ICE raids and mass protests—has ignited a fierce national debate over state sovereignty and civil-military boundaries. LAPD officers and National Guard soldiers stand on patrol as demonstrators protest outside a jail in downtown Los Angeles following two days of clashes with police during a series of immigration raids on June 8, 2025. Photograph:As hundreds of United States Marines deploy in Los Angeles under presidential orders to protect federal property amid growing protests over immigration enforcement, constitutional scholars and civil rights attorneys warn of long-term implications for American democracy and civil-military relations. President Donald Trump revealed Monday that he had ordered the deployment of more than 700 activity-duty Marines out of Camp Pendleton—an extraordinary use of military force in response to civil unrest. The move, widely condemned by his critics, follows Trump's federalization of the National Guard. Some 3,800 guardsmen have since been deployed in California against the objections of its government, spurring debate among legal observers over the limits of the president's power to send troops into American streets. Trump ordered the deployments in response to thousands of Angelenos who took to the streets on Friday in protests. LA residents responded after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents carried out sweeping raids of local businesses, arresting, among others, dozens of day laborers who were vying for work outside a local Home Depot. Larger demonstrations soon formed and remained largely peaceful until residents were engaged by police with riot shields and crowd control weapons. Over the weekend, the clashes between police and protesters escalated across many neighborhoods with large immigrant populations. Numerous buildings were vandalized with anti-ICE messages, and several Waymo autonomous vehicles were set ablaze. Videos captured by protest attendees show police firing upon demonstrators with rubber bullets and other crowd control agents, including waves of asphyxiating CS gas. Members of the press shared images online showing injuries they incurred from the police assault. In widely shared footage, a Los Angeles police officer appears to intentionally target an Australian reporter, Lauren Tomasi, shooting her from feet away with a rubber bullet as she delivers a monologue into a camera. On Monday, CNN correspondent Jason Carroll was arrested live on air. California governor Gavin Newsom condemned Trump's troop deployment in posts on social media, calling the president's actions an 'unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.' His attorney general, Rob Bonata, has filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming the order violated the state's sovereignty, infringing on Newsom's authority as the California National Guard's commander in chief. In response to a request for comment, the Department of Defense referred WIRED to a US Northern Command press release detailing the deployment of Marines and National Guardsmen. Federal troops in the United States are ordinarily barred from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. This rule, known as 'posse comitatus,' may be suspended, however, by a sitting president in cases of civil unrest or outright rebellion. This exception—permitted under the Insurrection Act—allows the president to deploy troops when circumstances make it 'impracticable' for state authorities to enforce federal law by 'ordinary' means. While these powers are most often invoked at the request of a state government, the president may also invoke the act when a state chooses to ignore the constitutional rights of its inhabitants—as happened multiple times in the mid-20th century, when southern states refused to desegregate schools after the Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision. President Trump, however, has so far not invoked the Insurrection Act, relying instead on a theory of 'inherent authority' advanced by the US Justice Department in 1971 during the height of the anti–Vietnam War protests. This interpretation of presidential power finds that troops may be deployed in an effort to 'protect federal property and functions.' Notably—unlike the Insurrection Act—this does not permit troops to engage in activities that are generally the purview of civilian law enforcement agencies. Trump also invoked statutory power granted to him by Congress under Title 10 of the US Code, which enabled him to federalize elements of California's National Guard. These activations typically occur when guardsmen are needed to support overseas military operations, as happened routinely this century during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Domestically, however, guardsmen are not usually federalized without the agreement of a state's governor—unless the Insurrection Act has been invoked. Legal experts interviewed by WIRED offered a range of opinions on the president's authority to deploy active-duty military troops or federalize the National Guard. While most believe it is likely within Trump's power to ignore Newsom's express objections, doing so without an invocation of the Insurrection Act, they say, is a decision fraught with legal complexities that carries serious implications, from altering—perhaps permanently—the fundamental relationship between Americans, states, and the federal government, to disturbing the delicate balance between civilian governance and military power. Liza Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, underscores the 'unprecedented' nature of Trump's approach. 'He's trying to basically exercise the powers of the Insurrection Act without invoking it,' she says. A key issue for Goitein is that the memorandum signed by Trump last week federalizing the National Guard makes no mention of Los Angeles or California. Rather, it states that the guardsmen are being mobilized to address protests that are both 'occurring' and 'likely to occur.' In essence, the memo 'authorizes the deployment of federal troops anywhere in the country,' Goitein says, 'including places where there are no protests yet. We're talking about preemptive deployment.' Goitein argues that the administration's justifications could undermine both judicial accountability and civil‑military boundaries. Under the Insurrection Act, federal troops can take on the responsibilities of local and state police. But without it, their authority should be quite limited. Neither the guardsmen nor the Marines, for instance, should engage with protesters acting peacefully, according to Goitein. 'He says they're there to protect federal property,' she says. 'But it looks a lot like quelling civil unrest.' Anthony Kuhn, a 28-year US Army veteran and managing partner at Tully Rinckey, believes, meanwhile, that there is really 'no question' that Trump would be justified in declaring a 'violent rebellion' underway in California, empowering him to ignore Newsom's objections. The images and video of protesters hurling rocks and other items at police and lighting cars on fire all serve as evidence toward that conclusion. 'I know people in California, the governor, the mayor, are trying to frame it as a protest. But at this point,' says Kuhn, 'it's a violent rebellion. You can draw your own conclusions from the pictures and videos floating around.' Kuhn argues that the intentions of the protesters, the politics fueling the demonstrations, don't matter. 'They're attacking federal facilities. They're destroying federal property. So in an attempt to restore the peace, the president has the authority under Title 10 to deploy troops. It's pretty straightforward.' In contrast, Rutgers University professor Bruce Afran says deploying military forces against Americans is 'completely unconstitutional' in the absence of a true state of domestic insurrection. 'There was an attack on ICE's offices, the doorways, there was some graffiti, there were images of protesters breaking into a guardhouse, which was empty,' he says. 'But even if it went to the point of setting a car on fire, that's not a domestic insurrection. That's a protest that is engaged in some illegality. And we have civil means to punish it without the armed forces.' Afran argues that meddling with the expectations of civilians, who naturally anticipate interacting with police but not armed soldiers, can fundamentally alter the relationship between citizens and their government, even blurring the line between democracy and authoritarianism. 'The long-term danger is that we come to accept the role of the army in regulating civilian protest instead of allowing local law enforcement to do the job,' he says. 'And once we accept that new paradigm—to use a kind of BS word—the relationship between the citizen and the government is altered forever.' 'Violent rioters in Los Angeles, enabled by Democrat governor Gavin Newsom, have attacked American law enforcement, set cars on fire, and fueled lawless chaos," Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, tells WIRED. "President Trump rightfully stepped in to protect federal law enforcement officers. When Democrat leaders refuse to protect American citizens, President Trump will always step in.' As the orders to mobilize federal troops have come down, some users on social media have urged service members to consider the orders unlawful and refuse to obey—a move that legal experts say would be very difficult to pull off. David Coombs, a lecturer in criminal procedure and military law at the University of Buffalo and a veteran of the US Army's Judge Advocate General's Corps, says it's hypothetically possible that troops could question whether Trump has the authority to mobilize state guardsmen over the objection of a state governor. 'I think ultimately the answer to that will be yes,' he says. 'But it is a gray area. When you look at the chain of command, it envisions the governor controlling all of these individuals.' Separately, says Coombs, when troops are ordered to mobilize, they could—again, hypothetically—refuse to engage in activities that are beyond the scope of the president's orders, such as carrying out immigration raids or making arrests. 'All they can do in this case, under Title 10 status, is protect the safety of federal personnel and property. If you go beyond that, then it violates the Posse Comitatus Act.' Federal troops, for instance, would need civilian police to step in. At the point, authorities want peaceful protesters to disperse. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that, in a letter on Sunday, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem requested that military troops be directed to detain alleged 'lawbreakers' during protests 'or arrest them,' which legal experts almost universally agree would be illegal under ordinary circumstances. The letter was addressed to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and accused the anti-ICE protesters of being 'violent, insurrectionist mobs' aiming to 'protect invaders and military aged males belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations.' Khun, who warns there's a big difference between philosophizing over what constitutes an unlawful order and disobeying commands, dismisses the idea that troops, in the heat of the moment, will have an option. 'It's not going to be litigated in the middle of an actual deployment,' he says. 'There's no immediate relief, no immediate way to prove that an order is unlawful.' Khun says that were he deployed into a similar situation, 'me and my junior soldiers would not respond to a nonviolent or peaceful protest.' Asked what protesters should expect, should they engage with federal troops trained for combat overseas, Kuhn says the Marines will hold their ground more firmly than police, who are often forced to retreat as mobs approach. In addition to being armed with the same crowd control weapons, Marines are extensively trained in close-quarters combat. 'I would expect a defensive response,' he says, 'but not lethal force.' Additional reporting by Alexa O'Brien.
