Donald Trump wants Greenland to be part of the United States of America. This statement has been met with equal measures of disdain and excitement among the political classes. From accusations of expansionism to absolute certainty that it is the only way to adequately defend the homeland, this is a divisive issue. The overarching sentiment, however, is that it is either just Trumpian bluster or an impossible task. But that ignores the very real defense implications and the history of American presidents expanding the area under their purview.
Making America Yuuger!
While naysayers pooh-pooh the idea of adding territory, this has often been the case. The current southern border is only where it is due to the Gadsden Treaty of 1854 between President Franklin Pierce and Mexican President Antonio de Santa Anna. That deal brought almost 30,000 square miles of territory into the US.
And what of Thomas Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase in 1803? This practically doubled the size of the nation – but the arrangement was not without its critics. At issue was whether the president had the authority under the Constitution. Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution states that the president:
“…shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;”
Jefferson was desperate for the deal to go ahead but also doubted he had the authority to make it. On October 20, however, the Senate voted 24 to 7 to ratify the purchase and the rest is history. Notably, if there had been a legal challenge from the Federalists (who were against the whole thing), the case would have ended up in the Supreme Court, which, at the time, was headed by Jefferson’s cousin (and political rival), Chief Justice John Marshall.
Marshall gave an indication of which way he would have ruled in a later case (1823) where he wrote: “The Constitution confers absolutely on the government of the Union, the powers of making war, and of making treaties; consequently, that government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty.”
But let’s get a little more specific.
In 1867, under President Andrew Johnson, Alaska became part of the United States after the Senate voted to confirm the purchase. Yet many doubted it was a good deal for America, calling it Seward’s Folly. The sale between Russia and the US was negotiated by Secretary of State William H. Seward for the princely sum of $7.2 million – about two cents an acre.
Also derisively termed “Seward’s Icebox,” the territory was essentially ignored for many years and governed only under military rules – until gold reserves were discovered. Its true value became apparent during World War II as a strategic base of operation, and Alaska eventually became the 49th state in 1959 – almost 100 years after its purchase.
It took decades for the strategic potential of Alaska to be realized by the federal government. Such a realization could well apply to Greenland, as well.
And let’s not ignore Hawaii, which was crucial to America’s military efforts during wars.
Just because the strategic significance of a territory is not immediately apparent does not mean that it might not prove decisive in the outcome of a future conflict. This goes double for Greenland, whose position is already considered vital.
What the Critics Say
On Wednesday, January 8, outgoing Secretary of State Antony Blinken offered his views on the notion. He said:
“The idea expressed about Greenland is obviously not a good one, but maybe more important it’s obviously one that’s not going to happen, so we probably shouldn’t waste a lot of time talking about it.
“I think one of the basic propositions we brought to our work over the last four years is that we’re stronger, we’re more effective, we get better results when we’re working closely with our allies, not saying or doing things that may alienate them.”
Wait … what? First, saying the idea of obtaining control over the largest island in the world – which is already considered a key strategic hub for America – is “not a good one” is almost beyond the realms of sanity. And then to suggest that people whose sole responsibility is to protect the US should not even be “thinking about it” is the very antithesis of what strategists should be doing.
But Blinken’s response also denies the current reality. Denmark and the US already have a treaty in place (since 1951) that granted the American military significant control in the defense of the region – a response to efforts during the Second World War. Thule Air Base (now called Pituffik Space Base) is the northernmost US military base and is located on the northwest coast of Greenland.
And what of Blinken’s suggestion that working with allies – presumably those in the EU – is better than going it alone? This is a disingenuous distraction at best. The US already provides military support to Europe, and not only through NATO. In fact, with the continuing encroachment of Russia and China in the region, a number of Western allies are looking to bolster defense – and where better to do that than Greenland?
Frank Sejersen, associate professor at the University of Copenhagen, told CBS News, “The Americans have a strong interest in overseeing the activities of foreign countries in Greenland because it's such a big security asset for foreign states, and due to that, any investment or activity, from the American point of view, may be seen as a security threat."
Let’s Talk Practicalities
Saber rattling aside, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said, “Greenland is not for sale.” While acknowledging the effort was legitimate, she explained:
“We need a very, very close co-operation with the US. On the other hand, I would like everyone to respect that Greenlanders are a people. It is their country that is at stake here.”
There is a missing piece of the puzzle, however. Greenland is, indeed, an autonomous part of the kingdom of Denmark, but as Frederiksen acknowledges, the choice ultimately rests with the 50,000-plus people who live on the island. Notably, when Trump first floated the idea back in 2019, she called the proposal “an absurd discussion.” That was five years ago, and the world is a lot more unstable now, especially with the war in Ukraine, the new Russo-Sino alliance, and, yes, America’s squandering of international capital during the four years of the Biden administration.
Such global events move discussions from the “absurd” to the potential.
So what will it take for the deal to happen? It’s actually not that hard. While the Danish PM declares Greenland is Danish, recent tensions between the autonomous zone and Denmark suggest the island natives are not happy with the status quo.
A Choice for Greenland
A 2008 law that passed with 75% support of Greenlanders brought more autonomy and self-governance to the region. With a 2009 self-rule law, the residents now have the right to declare complete independence with a referendum. Support for holding and implementing such a vote became apparent in a 2016 poll which showed 64% wanted full independence. However, a 2017 poll presented a caveat: 78% would refuse the total independence option if it meant a decrease in “living standards.”
Here's the rub: Greenlanders want to detach from Denmark, but only if their standard of living can be assured. And that’s where dealmaking becomes the only viable obstacle to Trump’s plans.
Consider this potential deal. Currently, Greenland gets from Denmark its defense and a yearly grant of just over three billion Danish kroner (about $400 million) – that’s about half of the local government revenue. If the US were to offer a stronger defense, a significant increase in spending, and maintain the independent status in return for unfettered access to defense facilities and preferential access to rare earth mineral mining (of which Greenland has an abundant supply), would the people go for it?
Well, that’s ultimately their decision, but it would grant them their dream of independence without the loss of fortune. And for America’s part, it would be a key feather in the defense cap – one that could be paid for through the mining revenues. But would Congress approve such a treaty?
The Two-Thirds Consideration
If the Greenlanders were open to the negotiation – and that remains a big if – Donald Trump would need to shepherd it through the Senate to get a two-thirds vote. With a 53 to 47 majority at present, it would require all GOP lawmakers and seven Democrats to vote it through. Considering the defense implications in a world that is far more dangerous than the one when Trump first floated the idea, it’s not as much of a pipedream as folks like Anthony Blinken would have us believe.
