WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has renewed efforts to acquire Greenland, with U.S. officials estimating the potential cost at between $500 billion and $700 billion, according to sources familiar with the matter.
The initiative has gained momentum since President Donald Trump took office in January, creating friction with Greenland, Denmark, and several U.S. allies. Last week, Trump designated Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as special envoy to Greenland, while bipartisan senators introduced legislation aimed at preventing the Defense Department from using its budget to assert control over NATO member territory without congressional authorization.
The issue has sparked intense debate over national sovereignty and strategic interests. While some see Trump’s vision as a bold move to secure U.S. influence in the Arctic, others view it as a diplomatic overreach that risks fracturing alliances. The question remains: is this a savvy geopolitical play or a costly misstep?
Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark with a population of approximately 57,000, has been the subject of U.S. strategic interest due to its Arctic location and natural resources. Denmark has maintained that Greenland is not for sale, and the White House has not publicly confirmed the estimated acquisition cost, NBC News reported.
Greenland’s leaders are feeling the heat from Trump’s overtures. “This is really filling the agenda and the discussions around the households,” said Naaja Nathanielsen, Greenland’s minister for business and mineral resources. Her words highlight a growing unease among Greenlanders, with an independent poll showing 85% oppose joining the U.S.
Let’s be clear: Greenland isn’t just a patch of ice—it’s a strategic goldmine. Trump’s concern about Russia or China gaining sway over Greenland’s coastline if it achieves independence isn’t baseless. But forcing the issue, as some administration officials have floated with military options, seems like using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut.
Nathanielsen didn’t mince words on where Greenland stands. “We have no intentions of becoming American,” she declared. That’s a hard stop, and it’s hard to ignore the anxiety her people feel under this relentless spotlight.
History offers context—back in 1916, the U.S. recognized Denmark’s interests in Greenland while purchasing Caribbean islands. Today, the U.S. already has a foothold with Pituffik Space Base, hosting radar systems for early warning against potential Russian threats. Denmark and the U.S. even share intelligence on regional military activity, so why push for more?
Options like a compact of free association, akin to agreements with Pacific nations such as the Marshall Islands, are on the table. This would grant the U.S. security access in exchange for financial aid, likely at a fraction of the cost of an outright purchase. It’s a pragmatic middle ground, but will it satisfy the “own, not lease” mindset Trump champions?
Greenland isn’t entirely closed off—officials are open to hosting more U.S. military assets and negotiating over resources like rare earth minerals. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen noted the U.S. could expand its existing presence. But she also warned that any forceful move could destabilize NATO, a risk not worth taking.
European allies, including Denmark, issued a joint statement last week pledging to defend Greenland’s territorial integrity. Their message was blunt: “Greenland belongs to its people.” That’s a unified front the U.S. can’t easily brush aside without diplomatic fallout.
Trump’s rhetoric has even drawn pushback on Capitol Hill, with some Republicans joining Democrats in resistance. Legislation introduced Tuesday aims to prevent unauthorized military moves in NATO territories. This bipartisan skepticism shows even Trump’s base isn’t fully on board with aggressive tactics.
Analysts like Ian Lesser of the German Marshall Fund downplay the odds of military action. His assessment is that force would not only be unnecessary but could shatter NATO unity. Cooler heads must prevail when alliances are at stake.
The U.S. already enjoys strategic benefits in Greenland under existing agreements, including the ability to boost troop levels and security capabilities. Greenland’s openness to further military assets suggests diplomacy could achieve Trump’s goals without a $700 billion price tag. Why escalate when cooperation is already on the table?
Trump’s comparison of owning Greenland to territories like Guam or Puerto Rico reveals a long-term vision of control. Yet, with 85% of Greenlanders opposed, this dream seems more like a hard sell than a handshake deal. Forcing it risks alienating allies and fueling anti-American sentiment.
