Correcting the Record: Why the United States Does Not Need to Control Greenland

 

Donald Trump has dramatically escalated his rhetoric and actions around seizing control of Greenland, threatening to undermine our strategic alliances with Europe and leave the United States isolated on the global stage. While there is little public support for such a move and Trump appeared to walk back invasion threats this week, Trump and his political allies are actively promoting the idea that control of Greenland is an urgent national security priority.

As this senseless effort continues, it is important to understand the arguments the Trump Administration is making – and how to clearly articulate why those claims do not hold up. This paper outlines Trump’s core arguments in favor of controlling Greenland and presents the most effective rebuttals to each.

Claim: Control of Greenland is essential for U.S. national defense. 

Rebuttal:

  • The United States already has what it needs. America operates a major military base in Greenland today and already monitors missiles and regional threats from there. Existing agreements with Denmark allow the United States to expand its military presence as needed. Owning Greenland would not meaningfully improve U.S. defenses.  

  • NATO – not ownership of Greenland – is the foundation of arctic security. Greenland’s security depends on cooperation with allies, not ownership. NATO countries work together to keep the Arctic free and stable. Trying to seize or buy Greenland would damage those relationships and weaken the very cooperation that keeps the region secure.

  • China and Russia are already constrained in Greenland. Greenland’s government, working with Denmark and the United States, has already blocked unwanted Chinese investments. Greenland’s leaders are firmly aligned with the West. 

Claim: Denmark is too small and lacks the resources to defend such a large and remote territory. Only the United States can guarantee Greenland’s safety.

Rebuttal: 

  • Denmark is not defending Greenland on its own. Greenland’s security is already ensured through NATO cooperation, which allows the United States to share burdens with its allies while still securing its core interests. If the United States tried to take control of Greenland, we would actually end up with more responsibility, not less. America would be on the hook for defending the island entirely by itself.

  • U.S. control would be extremely costly. The United States already has unrestricted access to the security capabilities that matter. Buying Greenland could cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and U.S. taxpayers would then be responsible for roads, schools, health care, and basic services for the population. None of that makes Americans safer.

Claim: Greenland’s natural resources are strategically vital. Control of these resources could reduce U.S. dependence on Chinese supply chains and enhance long-term economic and national security. 

Rebuttal: 

  • Resource access does not require ownership. The United States can diversify critical-mineral supply chains through trade agreements, investment partnerships, and domestic production. Greenlandic and Danish authorities are open to U.S. investment and cooperation, making diplomacy a more effective and far less costly tool than forcefully taking control.

  • Control does not solve the extraction problem. Greenland’s resources remain largely undeveloped because of extreme geography, harsh climate, limited infrastructure, and high extraction costs. Even under U.S. control, mining would require massive financial investment, long timelines, and few guarantees.  

Bottom Line: Greenland matters, but that does not mean the United States needs to own it.

America already has military access, strong alliances, and a cooperative relationship with Greenland and Denmark. Taking control would add massive costs, strain alliances, and create new obligations without delivering real security benefits.

The United States gets the benefits of partnership without the risks of ownership. Changing that would likely weaken American power and standing in the world, not strengthen it.

Talking Points: 

  • The United States already gets what it needs from Greenland without owning it. The United States already has unrestricted military access and strong cooperation with Denmark and NATO. Taking control would not make us safer.

  • Taking Greenland would destroy NATO and undermine U.S. security. Greenland’s security depends on cooperation among the United States, Denmark, and NATO allies. Undercutting that partnership would fracture the world’s most effective security alliance – one that came to America’s aid in Iraq and Afghanistan – handing Russia and China a strategic victory.

  • Buying or seizing Greenland would be a massive waste of taxpayer money. Americans would end up paying hundreds of billions of dollars for something that delivers no real benefit. Ownership would create new problems instead of solving old ones. If the U.S. takes control, we also take on the costs of governing and defending it long-term.

  • A takeover is not necessary to access Greenland’s natural resources. The United States can invest and trade for critical minerals in Greenland, just like we do with other countries. Diplomatic engagement and trade are far more effective – and far less risky – than attempting to take control of foreign territory.

  • Americans need lower costs – not new territories. Americans do not want another costly, unnecessary expansion abroad when there are real problems at home. Instead of spending billions of dollars to acquire Greenland, Trump should focus on lowering costs and improving health care for working Americans.

  • Greenland is not for sale. Denmark and the people of Greenland have been clear and unequivocal that they have no desire to be a part of the United States. Greenlanders have the right to decide their own future, and that right doesn’t disappear simply because Donald Trump wants to make a deal.

Published: January 2026