The Dangerous Folly of Pursuing Greenland: Why Trump's Expansionist Dreams Threaten Democratic Values

The Current Situation and Historical Context

President Donald Trump has reignited his administration’s pursuit of acquiring Greenland, with White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirming that options including military action or outright purchase are “actively being discussed” by the president and his national security team. This comes despite repeated statements from Denmark and its NATO allies that Greenland is not for sale. The timing is particularly concerning, following recent U.S. military intervention in Venezuela, suggesting a pattern of expansionist foreign policy approaches.

This isn’t the first time the United States has considered acquiring Greenland. In 1946, the U.S. made a formal offer of $100 million (nearly $1.7 billion today), which Denmark rejected. That offer amounted to 0.04% of U.S. GDP at the time, which would translate to approximately $1.2 billion today. However, current estimates suggest the territory’s value could reach into the trillions of dollars, with the American Action Forum study citing natural resource values exceeding $4.4 trillion, though environmental concerns and extraction challenges significantly reduce practical economic potential.

The Strategic and Economic Calculations

The American Action Forum, led by Douglas Holtz-Eakin, attempted to calculate Greenland’s value through both resource reserves and strategic positioning. Their study found that known critical mineral and energy resources alone total more than $4.4 trillion, though this drops to $2.7 trillion when excluding oil and natural gas that Greenland stopped exploring due to environmental concerns. The study also compared Greenland to Iceland, estimating that applying Iceland’s per-square-kilometer real estate value would result in nearly $2.8 trillion for Greenland.

However, President Trump has recently emphasized national security motivations over economic ones, claiming that “Greenland is covered with Russian and Chinese ships all over the place” and that the U.S. needs the territory “from the standpoint of national security.” The U.S. military already maintains a base in Greenland, but administration officials apparently believe full control would provide stronger Arctic positioning and access to emerging shipping lanes created by climate change.

The Fundamental Flaws in This Approach

What makes this pursuit so profoundly concerning is not just the practical impossibility of the endeavor, but the fundamental values it violates. The very idea that a democratic nation would consider acquiring territory against the will of its people and sovereign government represents a dangerous departure from the principles that have guided American foreign policy for decades. Greenland’s 57,000 people have the right to self-determination, and Denmark’s democratic government has clearly expressed its position. To disregard these voices in pursuit of territorial expansion is antithetical to the democratic values America claims to champion.

This approach treats international relations as a transactional marketplace where stronger nations can simply purchase or take what they want from weaker ones. It undermines the very foundation of the rules-based international order that the United States helped establish and has benefited from for generations. The NATO alliance, which Denmark helped co-found alongside the United States, is based on mutual respect and collective security—not on the principle that larger members can pressure smaller ones into surrendering territory.

The Dangerous Precedent Being Set

When the world’s most powerful nation openly discusses acquiring territory through purchase or military means, it sets a dangerous precedent that weaker nations cannot ignore. If the United States can pursue Greenland today, what prevents other powerful nations from making similar claims on territories they covet? This approach returns international relations to a 19th-century model of power politics where might makes right, undermining decades of progress toward a system based on rules, norms, and mutual respect.

The timing of this discussion, coming immediately after U.S. military intervention in Venezuela, suggests a pattern of behavior that should alarm all who care about international stability and democratic norms. Each action that tests or violates established norms makes the next violation easier, gradually eroding the constraints that prevent outright aggression between nations.

The Human Dimension Often Overlooked

Behind the strategic calculations and economic valuations are real people whose lives and futures would be fundamentally altered by such a transaction. Greenland’s 57,000 residents have their own culture, aspirations, and right to determine their political future. Treating their homeland as a commodity to be bought and sold reduces human beings to mere obstacles or assets in a geopolitical game. This dehumanization is fundamentally incompatible with the values of liberty and human dignity that America claims to represent.

The environmental considerations that led Greenland to halt oil and natural gas exploration in 2021 demonstrate a commitment to sustainable development that deserves respect, not dismissal. Forcing or pressuring Greenland to reverse these environmental protections for economic gain would represent another violation of the territory’s right to self-determination.

The Constitutional and Democratic Concerns

From a constitutional perspective, the pursuit of acquiring foreign territory through questionable means raises serious questions about the appropriate exercise of presidential power. While the president has authority over foreign policy, pursuing territorial expansion against the will of the people who live there and their legitimate government stretches executive authority to dangerous extremes. The Founders established a system of checks and balances precisely to prevent such expansive assertions of power.

Furthermore, the enormous financial cost—potentially reaching trillions of dollars—raises questions about democratic accountability. Such expenditures should require thorough congressional debate and public scrutiny, not backroom discussions within the executive branch. The American people deserve transparency about how their tax dollars are being spent and what foreign policy commitments their government is pursuing.

The Path Forward: Respecting Sovereignty and Democratic Values

Instead of pursuing territorial expansion, the United States should focus on strengthening its existing relationships and alliances. NATO remains the strongest military alliance in history precisely because it’s based on mutual respect and shared values, not coercion and territorial ambition. Working collaboratively with Denmark and Greenland through diplomatic channels would yield far more sustainable benefits than attempting to acquire territory against the will of its people.

The United States should champion the right of self-determination for all peoples, not seek to override it for strategic advantage. Our foreign policy should reflect our deepest values: respect for democracy, human dignity, and the rule of law. Pursuing Greenland through pressure or purchase would betray these fundamental principles and damage America’s standing in the world for generations to come.

In conclusion, the discussion around acquiring Greenland represents more than just a foreign policy debate—it’s a test of America’s commitment to its founding principles. Will we remain a nation that respects the sovereignty and self-determination of others, or will we embrace the expansionist logic of empires past? The answer will define not only our relationship with Denmark and Greenland, but America’s role in the world for decades to come.