Trump: ‘Anything Less Than’ U.S. Control of Greenland is ‘Unacceptable’
“The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security. It is vital for the Golden Dome that we are building.”
President Donald Trump wants Greenland, stressing again that Greenland is a national security issue.
The president wrote on Truth Social:
The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security. It is vital for the Golden Dome that we are building. NATO should be leading the way for us to get it. IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! Militarily, without the vast power of the United States, much of which I built during my first term, and am now bringing to a new and even higher level, NATO would not be an effective force or deterrent – Not even close! They know that, and so do I. NATO becomes far more formidable and effective with Greenland in the hands of the UNITED STATES.
Anything less than that is unacceptable. Thank you for your attention to this matter! President DJT
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) January 14, 2026
Leslie has done an excellent job covering Trump’s drive to gain Greenland.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio supposedly will meet with Danish officials this week to discuss Greenland.
Rubio reportedly told lawmakers that Trump wants to buy Greenland, not invade it.
“That’s always been the president’s intent from the very beginning,” Rubio told reporters last week. “He’s not the first US president that has examined or looked at how we could acquire Greenland.”
Rubio isn’t wrong. As Leslie pointed out, FDR wanted to place Greenland under U.S. protection, even establishing a de facto protectorate.
[Featured image via YouTube]
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Well, I’ve made my views known on this issue here before.
I’ll try once more.
You have a treaty with Denmark. It essentially allows you military access to Greenland. It would be easy to negotiate more. See the excellent Cdr Salamander’s substack on this:
https://cdrsalamander.substack.com/p/the-unfortunate-greenland-kerfuffle
Instead you want to steal it.
I’m deliberately slightly overstating things but not much.
Of course it’s a serious security issue. Of course you and the rest of Nato which is not quite as toothless as you think should reinforce Greenland’s security.
But the arguments I read here and elsewhere are those of a thief:
They’re not really using it;
They’re going to lose it anyway;
I could make much better use of it;;
I need it;
They deserve to lose it for taking such little care of it;
The Danes, to quote Cdr Salamander have been “a solid ally.” “She already let us have bases in Greenland.” “We won’t get all we want, but we should be able to get 80%. That’s good enough with friends.”
Instead you’ve massively antagonised a staunch ally (and yes, she has been a staunch ally). My daughter, son-in law (both military) and I have talked to several US military and they are between pretty and very pro Denmark and its very small but efficient armed forces.
I can only see this behaviour as the flip side of American isolationism.
But “We don’t need anybody else” is only coupled with “but we’ll take their stuff” if you’re a sociopath.
That’s a good series of points and I don’t necessarily disagree but that analysis incomplete. It entirely disregards ‘counter party risk’ and the growing tension between the EU and the USA.
Let’s say we can make a more favorable arrangement with Greenland and Denmark re use of Greenland by US Forces. Let’s keep in mind that we wouldn’t own it under that scenario just lease parts of it from our NATO ally.
Now let’s say we want to use the leased bases to conduct a non NATO led, independent military operation that, in the judgement of our gov’t is critical to the direct National interests of the USA. The Danes could conceivably object and block it….just as other NATO ‘allies’ have done in the recent past and throughout the history of the NATO alliance.
Then there’s a separate issue of resource deposits. Denmark, like most NATO members, is also a member of the EU. Will the EU be willing to allow US Corporations free rein in Greenland to extract the mineral wealth for the strategic benefit of the USA and to the detriment of the EU economically? I suspect the answer is no.
IMO the real strategic shift is away from the post Cold War era of globalism, financialization and an international ‘rules based order’ enforced by the USA DoD/Defense spending. That unipolar era is rapidly unwinding. In its place we will see a return of a multi polar powers with USA as the first among equals for the conceivable future if we are successful. Resource acquisition, direct control of strategic territory and hemispheric hegemonic powers asserting themselves is the new normal. All prior alliances will be re evaluated and some purported ‘allies’ will be found incompatible. See the UK and EU with their hostility towards and repression of free speech even threatening huge fines or a complete ban on X as one minor example.
All good points, if a little overstated.
It is important, I think, to strongly distinguish between the ghastly and proto-fascist EU and its constituent nation states. They have ceded some sovereignty, but by no means all, to the unelected nomenklatura in Brussels and Strasbourg.
The Danes are not the Germans or the Belgians, as evidenced by their current strong pushback against unfettered immigration without assimilation.
I guess my point is, if you want to steal Greenland you can, but beware becoming what you profess to despise.
The UK does not have a hostility to free speech, BTW. The population are less concerned about it than I think they should be, but it’s the current governing elites (and most leftists) who loathe it because it threatens their tenuous grip on power.
The shift away from globalism/financialization towards a system based on resource control in a multi polar world is not overstated. Nor is it an overstatement to point out that owning v leasing allows more options and that our ‘allies’ have a historical record of blocking/preventing US military actions from those leased bases.
The UK leadership is hostile to free speech thus the UK is hostile to free speech b/c that’s the series of policy decisions the elected leaders are implementing. You can’t argue ‘trust NATO allies’ then argue the very govt of those NATO allies is not representative of the Nation. Right now the UK PM is trying mightily to give away the critically strategic location for US base at Diego Garcia.
The overlap between NATO and EU is a real problem. On one hand the European Nations want to be treated as individual sovereign Nations in NATO. Simultaneously they want to be an economically integrated union that centralized regulatory power, currency, economic policy, is moving closer to common diplomatic policy and keeps floating the idea of a separate EU military. These are the same ‘allies’ that created and maintained tariff and non tariff barriers to free trade long after they recovered from the devastation of WWII and even three decades+ beyond the end the Cold War. Finally NATO is a cold war relic whose stated purpose; counter poise to the Soviet Empire, died decades ago…many former Soviet Nations are now NATO members for goodness sake.
Forgot to address your comment re ‘beware becoming want you profess to despise’.
Fair enough. On the other hand the USA is reinvigorating its long-standing status as the regional hegemonic power. That isn’t new and certainly isn’t something ‘foreign’ to the history or philosophy of the USA. Greenland is in our hemisphere and unfortunately for the Danes, the USA is much more powerful, far more populous, much bigger economy and dwarfs the Danes militarily. Maybe if the Danes dropped out of the EU, severed their economic ties and formed a bloc with Poland, Hungary and some other Eastern European Nations in a new alliance with the USA that tied their economic success to that of the USA then we would have far more tangible reasons to trust the Danes not to bend under severe pressure by our adversaries.
A good case study can be made using Diego Garcia. A UK possession although I’m not sure of its official status. A critical UK-US base is there. The UK is supposed to be our strongest ally. And yet the UK labor party is handing it back to Mauritius even though the base is supposed to remain for at least 99 years. Something similar could happen with Greenland. An ally one day a neutral the next. We have no control over that.
ztakddot,
I made specific note of Diego Garcia in my post to illustrate the potential for NATO allies’ to harm the strategic interests of the USA. Another would be Turkey at the beginning of the Iraq war which refused permission for a large ground force to cross into north Iraq. There’s plenty of examples of why it is far better to ‘own’ than to rent/lease with our ‘allies’ refusing the USA the use of our own bases to launch operations they didn’t like.
The Inuit are recognized as the Indigenous people of Greenland. 90% of the population are Inuit.
The Danes are colonizers. The overwhelming majority of nations that were once colonies are now independent sovereign states. But the Great Powerful Danes are hanging on to their little colony for dear life.
I missed your Diego reference. Sorry. Two other examples come to mind. One is Guantanamo Bay and the other is the Panama Canal. There is also the Philippines which kicked us out although we may be back in and Puerto Rico where we were kicked out of a base there but are still saddled with the expense of the place. Also Niger which kicked us out recently.
The point is occupation of territory in another country by agreement is never guaranteed and even the existence of a base in territory we control is never guaranteed. Ownership is always preferred.
ztakddot,
No worries. There are many examples that prove ownership is far preferably to lease of a base.
not wrong with one exception:
“very pro Denmark and its very small but efficient armed forces.”
unless they are going to fight like the israelis …they will need 100% coverage by the usa military should any real sh breakout
I take your point, but there is some evidence that, if really pushed, the Danes will fight like the Israelis!
The Danes are competent Soldiers, their elite units very much so. They did support the GWOT though their enthusiasm has waned a bit.
Really pushed? I’d suggest you look at their WWII experience. Seemed like the Germans ‘really pushed’ and occupied Denmark without much difficulty. The Finns on the other hand fought like demons against all comers. Sweden made enough investment in defense, becoming too tough a nut to crack and was able to deter aggression and maintain their neutrality.
The last time the Danes fought like that was 1075 when King Cnut led an invasion of England, sacked York and plundered coast taking women and children captives.
Good allies do their part. Denmark and it’s EU cronies do the minimum and expect to be in charge of NATO. I think they are an opportunistic ally at best.
France is the worst. Stabbed us in the back in the lead up to Iraq 2. Always acting more important than they really are. Meanwhile they are losing their country day by day.
BTW: The idiotic antisemitic Spanish Prime Minister just came out and said the EU should have a 100K standing army. What a joke, How many fighting troops would there be in such an army? Maybe 10K at most.
I ask you all to remember Trump’s negotiation style. You’ve seen it again and again but people fall for it every time. Perhaps I recognize it because I used to be Labor Relations for a large company.
Here’s how it works: Make a totally outrageous initial demand. Stick to it with a crazy fervor. The other side will start moving towards you bit by bit, however you must continue to insist while frothing at the mouth. Eventually you will let yourself be talked off the ledge, and the other side will think they’ve won – but will have given up far more than they originally intended.
TLDR: Eventually there will be a compromise solution, say with Denmark retaining control, the U.S. getting exclusive mining rights, and the NATO countries actually spending some of their money on patrolling the waters instead of the U.S.
that would be at the least …but would suffice
I sure hope this is a laser pointer.
There far more important foreign affairs to be dealing with right now.
hes not wrong but we need a good pr look on this if at all possible
How much are US taxpayers going to have to pay to buy frozen island? Could that money be used for other things?
??
the place,,like alaska has more than just an ice skating rink for penguins
oil/minerals/ strategic geography
maybe a place blmplo can go for a long term vaca
1. Incredibly strategic location. Not just for Arctic access or the N Atlantic but directly on the short flight path for aircraft and missiles to hit the USA.
2. All sorts of untapped natural resources we need and want to keep out of the hands of our strategic competitors of China, Russia (to an extent) and the EU.
The more realistic way to view this is the purchase of Alaska.
ironic
that the eu is 1000% dependent on the usa for everything
but when the usa is doing the right thing to make that easier for all who value western values ( and that might whats really at issue here)
the eu opposes us
how left wingy of them
It’s what they do best!
yes and zaps our resources
Start twisting/breaking arms in congress to defund NATO and end sending any foreign aid to europe.
Next, kick the UN out with only 30 days notice. Let europe put up a building and pay the majority of the costs of the building and running the UN. Also drop our membership as soon as the building is completed. Watch them scramble for money to keep it going.
” The United States needs Greenland for the purpose of National Security. It is vital for the Golden Dome that we are building. NATO should be leading the way for us to get it. IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!”
This sort of Sudetenland liebensraum rhetoric is certainly is a bad look for someone whose enemies love to call him “literally Hitler.”
Who else here is old enough to remember the “crisis” over Quemoy and Matsu?
More like historical Monroe doctrine and gaining control of strategic locations/strategic resources in our own hemisphere where we are, finally, returning some of our focus v half a world away in events/issues and locations that don’t have a direct national interest. ‘Stealing Panama’ from Colombia would be a much more fair comparison/parallel.
Nah, that’s not Monroe doctrine, that’s imperialism.