Acquiring Greenland: Procedure and Process

Lately, sensationalized articles abound regarding the possibility of a US acquisition of Greenland. These conversations stem from recently reiterated remarks that Trump has made about the island. According to him, Greenland is directly a piece of US national security and needs to be incorporated into our country. There are multiple routes by which such an acquisition could take place–but many question the morality and necessity of the move.

Greenlanders have long sought independence from Denmark, their current “owner.” Greenland is an autonomous territory within Denmark’s kingdom, which has its own government, despite having its budget subsidized and its foreign relations managed by Denmark. The provided subsidy typically composes more than half of the island’s budget, and in sheer amount is roughly a quarter of their GDP. Yet, Greenland wants to hold title to its own territory, especially given the broad differences between their land and that of Denmark.

Technically, the island could currently be purchased, through a deal with Denmark; or later, through a deal with Greenland itself post-independence. Due to the fact that Trump is the chief proponent of such deals at the moment, the media naturally becomes inordinately polarized on the issue. So, I will delve into Greenland’s history; the precedence of similar territory acquisitions; the sensible reasons to buy Greenland (and potential reasons not to); the legality of the matter; and finally, how it might ultimately take place.

In 1721, Hans Egede, a man from the United Kingdom of Denmark-Norway, founded a Lutheran mission and trading company near present-day Nuuk (Britannica). By 1776, Denmark had gained a full monopoly of trade with Greenland–the coast of the territory was not reopened to foreign access until 1950. Denmark, purportedly, tried to protect the Greenlanders from economic exploitation by the outside world. Following the second World War, Denmark began to heed Greenland’s complaints over its administration of the territory, particularly their desire for greater autonomy. Various projects were initiated to this end, and in 1979, Denmark ceded home rule to the island. The nation has been through numerous elections, and has consistently sought greater autonomy, in the realms of justice, economy, and foreign relations.

Due to their consistent interest in separation from Denmark, an oft-raised question addresses whether or not the nation would be receptive to a simple transfer of ownership to the US. They have sought independence for so long–but was that primarily an effort to escape Denmark’s influence specifically, or to gain complete individuality? The answer to this question, when it comes to the average Greenlander, is highly relevant. It would largely determine America’s ability to purchase the territory. Even if Greenlanders as a whole prefer independence, though, such a personal value may be nullified at the right price.

Say the US offered to buy Greenland by paying $224 billion, equally distributed amongst the population of 56,000 (Denmark.dk). This would amount to a $4 million payment direct to each citizen of the island. I would personally wager that a popular vote regarding future statehood would be a landslide, if such an event made each citizen that wealthy. Certainly, some would be willing to forego wealth in order to protect local values. However, the risk-reward ratio would be so much in Greenlanders’ favor that a vote under such circumstances should go favorably for the US. Even still, it is worth keeping in mind that the island’s parliament has voted for the environment above the economy multiple times in the past (Earth).

In any case, Trump will certainly do his best to find a mutually agreeable method of purchase. The quantity of leverage, economically, militarily, or politically, that will be employed to do so remains up in the air for the moment. Leftist media pundits have moved to condemn Trump en masse over his refusal to rule out economic or military coercion. Conservative media, for the most part, appears almost amused–perhaps surprised, but not upset, over the prospect.

According to Trump, the acquisition is important for US national security. Over the past decade, China has sought greater presence on the island, bidding to build two airports as well as discussing investment in mining and water-related projects. Due to US pressure to prevent China from developing a foothold on the island, Denmark declined the Chinese offers (The Conversation).

China, Russia, and the US have had historical interest in the island due to the strategic nature of its location. Greenland is crucial in projecting power internationally, controlling major shipping routes, and monitoring the actions of rival powers. Additionally, the reality of decreasing ice levels opens up access to a vast quantity of raw material deposits, including oil, gas, zinc, platinum, copper, and rare earths (National Interest). Greenland alone is estimated to hold nearly as many rare-earth reserves as the current United States, making it strategically crucial in the event of a trade war and increased tariff pressure. Regarding the potential for shipping route control, I would wager that Trump’s interest in the Panama Canal coincides with his interest in Greenland. Possession of both routes would give the United States particularly potent oversight on Western Hemisphere shipping.

Greenland is also positioned on one side of the GIUK gap: a well-known naval choke point between Greenland, Iceland, and the UK. Russia has been increasing its military presence there and plans to continue doing so in the near future. The United States, in seeking to acquire Greenland, could develop a strong counter presence in the North. If China and Russia continue to go unchecked in the region, the last chance to make a reasonable difference may prove sooner than later. According to Alexander Gray, Trump’s former National Security Council chief of staff, the renewed focus on Greenland and Panama is somewhat warranted–it stems from the threat of China and Russia’s advances, both unique and joint, towards the Western Hemisphere. He believes that this is a “much more traditional way of defining our core security interests” (Foreign Policy). By gaining a stronger foothold in contested locations, the US can, in a sense, extend its defensible borders and range of effective surveillance.

Now, rationale surrounding interest in such a purchase aside, I will analyze existing precedent to such an event; then, the legality and procedure of it all. While critics lambast the prospect, labeling it as imperialistic or megalomaniacal, it is not a new idea. Forty percent of US land was gained as a result of sovereignty purchases. Additionally, Denmark, which currently acts as if the sale of sovereignty goes against its principles, has engaged in such practices for centuries.

In the mid-1800s, they transferred control of territories in India to the East India Company for millions of rupees. Most shockingly, however, in the 1900s, they approached the US with an offer to sell Greenland–which our nation rejected. A few decades later, the Truman administration offered $100 million for the island, recognizing its importance, but the offer passed by, unaccepted (Stanford). All in all, Trump’s desire for Greenland, and clear willingness to negotiate a purchase, is not novel. Many politicos of the day would have us think otherwise, in their concerted effort to paint Trump in their favored negative caricatures. Ultimately, regardless of personal opinions, it is clear that Trump seeks to reinvigorate American territory expansion, which has been dormant for some time, rather than simply increasing military presence in other sovereign nations.

Politics aside, is it possible for the incoming administration to undertake such a purchase? The answer is yes–with some hurdles involved. Firstly, as Greenland is currently under Danish ownership, yet with its own degree of national autonomy, the US would need official approval from both the Danes and the Greenlanders. However, if Greenland’s movement for independence from Denmark–which has been gaining steam–comes to fruition, Danish approval would no longer be a factor. An independent Greenland could choose to associate itself with the United States through a referendum (Eurasian Times).

Leaders of both Denmark and Greenland appear hesitant to pursue a deal, claiming that the island is “not for sale,” and stressing the nation’s desire for autonomy. As we approach inauguration day, though, tones have warmed towards negotiating some kind of military agreement at the bare minimum. Rhetoric may yet warm further, but time will tell. Still, no matter what talking heads may say, individuals’ desire for independence may have a price tag, especially in light of the benefits of joining America. Statehood would provide Greenland with immense opportunity and growth that it otherwise would not have access to, which would certainly sweeten any deal.

Even if an agreeable deal is crafted, though, the US Senate would have to ratify it with two-thirds approval. While the payment alone could be ratified by simple majority in both chambers, the deal itself would have to be passed by a Senate two-thirds supermajority. In today’s political climate, even if Greenland enthusiastically agreed to become a state, such a Congressional approval seems unreliable, if not outright unlikely. Regardless, House Republicans have gotten the ball rolling by introducing a bill on January 13, which, if passed, would permit Trump to enter direct negotiations with Denmark (Axios).

If it proves impossible to buy Greenland in the near term, other options exist to sate US interests there. For one, we could draft a Compact of Free Association, which would provide exclusive military access to the island, and the right to determine which other nations may base their troops there. Even simpler than that, we could add additional military equipment to the island, particularly early warning sensors and detection tools to keep tabs on Sino-Russian military moves or aggression. We, in conjunction with NATO allies, have significant surveillance gaps in parts of the Atlantic and the Arctic (Politico), so any increase in military presence would be a boon to national security.

I find it likely that, at the least, significant progress will be made toward acquiring Greenland across the next few years. While neither Denmark nor Greenland may be necessarily thrilled about the prospect, they can be convinced. Whether that convincing takes place as a result of the price elasticity of independence to a Greenlander, and thereby their willingness to be bribed; threats of tariffs on the relevant nations; or the simple flexing of military power, it is highly likely to occur. Consider that Trump cannot be reelected for a third term. As a result, he has no reason to cajole or cater to anyone. He can bluntly use his Presidential power to bring his goals to reality, whether anyone likes that or not.

If anything, the only real obstacle lies in the requirement that certain actions and treaties be approved by a two-thirds vote in the Senate. Regardless of the Republican control of both chambers, the overall split remains near enough to 50-50 that a two-thirds approval would prove tedious to achieve. Republicans are not guaranteed to present an entirely unified front on such a matter; while, on the other hand, Democrats are likely to unilaterally vote against it. Bear in mind that these legislative votes against Trump represent the only real power the party has left to wield at the moment. They won’t give that up easily.

Ultimately, if the deal were to successfully go through, the territorial acquisition would be the largest in US history–just above the Louisiana purchase. It would also make the US the second largest country by land mass, passing China and Canada. Once additional military bases and hardware were set up, it would provide us a strategic position to ward off Chinese and Russian forces. And, as the ice melts, we would gain continually more valuable access to natural resources in the region, as well as control over the future polar trade route. While these factors make the deal seem majorly beneficial to our nation, there are undeniable risks.

Firstly, in the event that we use economic and military pressures to take the land, our relationship to the rest of NATO may come under tension. Additionally, a forceful acquisition could theoretically serve as a dangerous inspiration to China and Russia when it comes to land grabs (Taiwan is a chief concern). Despite any risks, however, America remains indisputably the most powerful nation in the world. While foreigners, as well as disgruntled domestic citizens, may decry the actions of US leadership, they ultimately have to deal with them.

Things like acquiring Greenland and the Panama Canal, as well as renaming the Gulf of Mexico–they bring forth a lot of criticism but may be largely beneficial in general. Detractors love to foster fear, particularly worst-case scenarios. Yet, if an action brings net benefit to our nation and her allies, is it truly so controversial at its core? The debate around the Greenland issue as a whole deal not with the letter of international law, but with the spirit of political norms and taboos. If the purchase goes through, and the predicted benefits come to pass, I would assume that a majority of the public denouncers will be over their extreme feelings before long—in much the same way, if the deal does not go through, those who have supported it will ultimately be just fine.

Works Cited

Burrows, Mathew. “Why Greenland Matters.” The National Interest, 10 Jan. 2025, nationalinterest.org/feature/why-greenland-matters-214347. Accessed 16 Jan. 2025.

Detsch, Jack. “Can Trump Buy Greenland? Technically, Yes. Here Are His Options” Politico, 9 Jan. 2025, www.politico.com/news/2025/01/09/can-america-buy-another-country-00197197.

“Greenland: The World’s Largest Island.” Denmark.dk, denmark.dk/people-and-culture/greenland.

Heiba, Serag. “How Rare-Earth Mineral Mining Is Changing Greenland’s Politics.” Earth.org, 18 June 2021, earth.org/rare-earth-mineral-mining-is-changing-greenland-politics/.

Lu, Christina. “Trump’s Greenland Bid Cites U.S. National Security, Arctic Defense.” Foreign Policy, 9 Jan. 2025, foreignpolicy.com/2025/01/09/trump-greenland-denmark-united-states-security/. Accessed 16 Jan. 2025.

Montgomery, Scott L. “4 Reasons Why the US Might Want to Buy Greenland – If It Were for Sale, Which It Isn’t.” The Conversation, 14 Jan. 2025, theconversation.com/4-reasons-why-the-us-might-want-to-buy-greenland-if-it-were-for-sale-which-it-isnt-246955.

Press, Steven. “Buying Greenland Isn’t a New Idea | Department of History.” Stanford.edu, Stanford University, 2025, history.stanford.edu/news/buying-greenland-isnt-new-idea.

Rasmussen, Rasmus. “Greenland - History | Britannica.” Encyclopædia Britannica, 2019, www.britannica.com/place/Greenland/History.

Solender, Andrew. “House GOP Crafts Bill to Let Trump Purchase Greenland.” Axios, 13 Jan. 2025, www.axios.com/2025/01/13/trump-buy-greenland-house-republican-bill. Accessed 16 Jan. 2025.

Sumit Ahlawat. “$7.2M for Alaska, $15M for California, Here’s How Donald Trump Could Make Greenland the 51st State of USA.” Eurasian Times, 12 Jan. 2025, www.eurasiantimes.com/can-trump-buy-greenland/. Accessed 16 Jan. 2025

‍