President Donald Trump is renewing a push for the United States to acquire Greenland to bolster national security and access mineral resources. Officials from the U.S., Denmark, and Greenland met in Washington to discuss options ranging from a diplomatic purchase to the use of military force. Experts warn that a forced takeover could destroy the NATO alliance and create a massive financial burden for American taxpayers. Greenland currently relies on the Danish welfare system, which provides free health care and education to its 57,000 residents. While the U.S. already operates the Pituffik Space Base on the island, the administration seeks more direct ownership. Further meetings are scheduled for next week as the White House explores bilateral agreements and potential purchase options.
President Donald Trump is pushing for the United States to take control of Greenland. He has stated many times that the island is a vital spot for American interests. Greenland is currently a region that runs itself but is still part of Denmark. Denmark is a close ally of the United States and a member of NATO. Officials from the United States, Denmark, and Greenland met in Washington this past Thursday. They plan to meet again next week to keep talking about this plan. The White House is looking at many ways to get the island.
President Trump and his officials have a clear reason for wanting to control Greenland. They believe it will make the United States much safer. They also want to look for new business and mining deals on the island. Trump told reporters that owning the land is better than just signing a document. He wants the power that comes with being the actual owner of the territory. He believes that ownership gives the country things that a simple agreement cannot provide. This focus on the island comes after some experts say the United States has not paid enough attention to the Arctic for a long time.
On Friday, President Trump said he is going to do something about Greenland whether the people there like it or not. He said that if it cannot be done the easy way, he will do it the hard way. He did not explain exactly what the hard way would be. This has caused some worry among allies. The Danish Prime Minister has spoken out against this idea. She warned that if the United States took over Greenland, it could mean the end of the NATO alliance. People living in Greenland have also said they do not want to become part of the United States.
There are many challenges to taking over such a large island. Greenland is the largest island in the world. However, only about 57,000 people live there. The island does not have its own military. Right now, Denmark provides defense for the island. The military of Denmark is much smaller than the military of the United States. It is not clear how other NATO members would act if the United States used force to take the island. This could create a very big problem for global relations.
Some officials say the United States needs Greenland to stay safe from other countries. They point to Russian and Chinese ships in the Arctic region. However, some experts on Arctic politics say these threats might not be as big as they seem. They say there are no Russian surface ships near Greenland. China has some research ships in the area, but their military exercises with Russia usually happen closer to Alaska. These experts believe that blowing up the NATO alliance for Greenland does not make sense because the US already has some access to the island.
Since 1945, the number of American troops in Greenland has gone down. At one time, there were thousands of soldiers and 17 different bases. Today, there are only about 200 troops at the Pituffik Space Base. This base is in the northwest part of the island. It helps the United States and NATO watch for missiles and track objects in space. Vice President J.D. Vance has said that Denmark has not done enough to help with missile defense in Greenland. Experts say the main reason the US is at the Pituffik base is to find missiles early.
There are other ways the United States could try to get more control without using force. One idea is to buy the island. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told some lawmakers that the administration wants to purchase Greenland eventually. However, leaders in Denmark and Greenland have said the island is not for sale. Another option is to sign a special agreement like the ones the US has with islands in the Pacific Ocean. This would give the United States a veto over security choices made by the local government.
If the United States uses a security agreement like the one used in the Pacific, the cost would be high. This type of deal is called a Compact of Free Association. It could require the United States to pay about seven billion dollars every year in economic aid. In return, Washington would get to run military bases and have a veto over security choices made by the local government. The island currently uses the Danish welfare system for health care and schools. The United States would have to find a way to replace or fund these services. Matching the current Danish welfare system would be a major financial burden for the American government.
President Trump may continue to talk about Greenland to change what is in the news. Some experts believe he uses the topic to distract people from other problems. They say he can just say the word Greenland and the whole debate starts all over again. For now, the United States already has the right to bring as many troops as it wants to its current base under old agreements. The best result for Denmark would be to update the current defense deal. However, it is not likely that this disagreement will be settled soon. More meetings will happen next week to see if any progress can be made on these strategic goals.
Eric Nolan serves as the Senior Correspondent for Food, Water, and Environmental Health at Just Right News, where he brings a principled, common-sense perspective to the most fundamental issues facing the American public. With a career dedicated to uncovering the truth behind the policies that govern our natural resources, Eric has become a trusted voice for readers who value traditional stewardship over bureaucratic overreach. His reporting is defined by a commitment to the idea that true environmentalism is rooted in the protection of the American family and the preservation of the nation’s agricultural heritage.
Raised in Fresno, California, Eric’s worldview was shaped in the heart of the San Joaquin Valley. Growing up in one of the world’s most productive agricultural hubs, he witnessed firsthand the vital connection between the land, the water, and the dinner table. In Fresno, he saw the resilience of farmers and the devastating impact that distant, top-down regulations can have on local communities. This upbringing instilled in him a deep respect for the producers who feed the country and a lifelong skepticism toward the alarmist narratives often pushed by mainstream media. For Eric, environmental health is not an abstract political talking point; it is a matter of ensuring that the people who work the land have the freedom and the resources to do so effectively.
Now based in Eugene, Oregon, Eric operates from a unique vantage point in the Pacific Northwest. Living in a region often defined by intense environmental debate, he provides a necessary counter-narrative to the prevailing trends of the area. From his base in Eugene, he monitors the shifting tides of federal and state policies, ensuring that the voices of rural citizens and property owners are not drowned out by urban activism. His reporting often bridges the gap between the rugged realities of the outdoors and the legislative halls where decisions are made, offering a grounded perspective that prioritizes local sovereignty and practical solutions.
As the lead for the acclaimed feature series “Earth on the Table,” Eric explores the intricate journey of the American food supply. He tackles critical issues such as water rights, soil health, and food security through a lens of national stability and individual liberty. He believes that a healthy environment and a thriving economy are not mutually exclusive, but rather two sides of the same coin of national prosperity. His work consistently highlights how innovation and private-sector ingenuity are the most effective tools for ensuring clean water and a safe food supply, rather than the expansion of the administrative state.
At Just Right News, Eric’s reporting serves as a vital resource for those who seek accountability and transparency. Whether he is investigating the impact of federal land management on local economies or examining the safety of the national food infrastructure, his work remains anchored in the values of heritage and hard work. Eric Nolan continues to be a leading voice in environmental journalism, championing the belief that the best way to protect our natural resources is to empower the people who live and work closest to them.