
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


The Hill
5 minutes ago
- The Hill
Vance on LA unrest: Newsom should ‘look in mirror' and stop blaming Trump
Vice President JD Vance on Tuesday tore into California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) for suggesting the unrest in Los Angeles is a consequence of federal involvement in state and local law enforcement efforts. 'Gavin Newsom says he didn't have a problem until Trump got involved,' Vance wrote in a post on X, attaching two photos that he said were taken before Trump ordered the National Guard to protect border patrol agents in California. One depicted rioters appearing to attack a 'border patrol' van, and another depicted a car set ablaze. The Hill was not able to verify the authenticity of the photos. 'Does this look like 'no problem'?' Vance asked. Vance suggested Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass 'fomented and encouraged the riots,' with the goal of promoting mass migration into the U.S., adding, 'It is their reason for being.' 'If you want to know why illegal aliens flocked to your state, stop accusing Donald Trump. Look in the mirror,' Vance said. 'If you want to know why border patrol fear for their lives over enforcing the law, look in the mirror.' Vance pointed to California's Medicaid expansion last year to low-income undocumented immigrants as an example of a policy that has 'encouraged mass migration into California.' Newsom has since proposed ending new Medicaid enrollment for undocumented adults, but his proposal faces resistance from the state legislature. 'Your policies that protected those migrants from common sense law enforcement. Your policies that offered massive welfare benefits to reward illegal immigrants. Your policies that allowed those illegal migrants (and their sympathizers) to assault our law enforcement. Your policies that allowed Los Angeles to turn into a war zone,' Vance continued. 'You sure as hell had a problem before President Trump came along. The problem is YOU,' Vance added. Vance's post is the latest in a back-and-forth between the administration and Newsom, who has resisted Trump's extraordinary steps to deploy 4,000 National Guard troops to the area and mobilize 700 active-duty marines. Newsom has insisted that the situation was under control before the Trump administration escalated tensions by making a provocative show of force. He accused Trump of 'intentionally causing chaos, terrorizing communities and endangering the principles of our great democracy.' After Trump suggested his border czar arrest Newsom, the California governor responded by saying, 'The President of the United States just called for the arrest of a sitting Governor. This is a day I hoped I would never see in America.' 'I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican this is a line we cannot cross as a nation — this is an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism,' Newsom added Monday afternoon. Vance then replied to Newsom, saying, 'Do your job. That's all we're asking.' 'Do YOUR job. We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. Rescind the order. Return control to California,' Newsom responded, prompting Vance's latest response.


Axios
7 minutes ago
- Axios
Newsom denies Trump spoke to him before deploying more National Guards
California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on Tuesday said President Trump did not speak with him, despite deploying national military personnel to respond to Los Angeles protests. Why it matters: Trump claimed that he had spoken with the governor and criticized his handling of the rallies against Immigration and Customs Enforcement's actions. "There was no call. Not even a voicemail," Newsom said on X. "Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn't even know who he's talking to." Driving the news: Trump, speaking to the media on Tuesday, said he last talked with Newsom "a day ago." "Called him up to tell him, got to do a better job," Trump said. "He's doing a bad job, causing a lot of death and a lot of potential death." Reality check: California authorities have not reported any deaths during the protests. A total of 72 people have been arrested over the past weekend, with five police officers being injured, according to local media report on Monday Context: The Marines deployed to LA have not yet responded to immigration protests.


Axios
7 minutes ago
- Axios
Black Caucus chair says Trump's actions on L.A. are impeachable
Congressional Black Caucus chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday she believes President Trump mobilizing the National Guard and deploying Marines to Los Angeles rises to the level of an impeachable offense. Why it matters: It's a break with House Democrats' general aversion towards impeachment from the head of one of their most powerful groups. The comment comes amid growing animosity between Democrats and the Trump administration over the president's use of law enforcement to carry out a campaign of mass deportations. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Driving the news: During a press conference, Clarke was asked if Trump's actions to quell protests in L.A. rise to the level of an impeachable offense "I definitely believe it is," she responded, "But we'll cross that bridge when we get to it." Clarke and other Democrats have argued that Trump has violated the U.S. Constitution by mobilizing the National Guard over Newsom's objections. Reality check: Democrats are highly unlikely to pursue an organized impeachment effort against Trump any time soon. Two rank-and-file members, Reps. Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) and Al Green (D-Texas), have spearheaded their own rogue impeachment initiatives, but most Democrats have dissociated themselves with those efforts. Most Democrats are clear-eyed that impeachment would be doomed to failure with Republicans in control of Congress — and they often note that Trump won in 2024 despite previously being impeached twice. What they're saying: House Democratic Caucus chair Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.) told reporters at a subsequent press conference, "I've said before that ... House Democrats aren't focused on impeachment today."