Areas of Common Ground
Despite partisan divides, most Americans agree on these key points:
- âś“The Arctic region is strategically important for U.S. national security
- âś“China and Russia are expanding their presence in the Arctic and it deserves attention
- âś“Rare earth minerals and natural resources matter for American economic security
+ 5 more areas of agreement below
What's the Challenge?
President-elect Donald Trump has repeatedly expressed interest in the United States purchasing or acquiring Greenland, the world's largest island, which is an autonomous territory of Denmark. Trump first raised this idea in 2019 (calling it 'essentially a large real estate deal'), and has renewed the discussion in 2025, refusing to rule out military or economic coercion to achieve this goal. Greenland is strategically important for Arctic military positioning, mineral resources including rare earth elements critical for technology and defense, and melting ice opening new shipping routes. Denmark and Greenland have firmly rejected any sale, but Trump's statements have sparked debate about American territorial ambitions, sovereignty, alliance relationships, and whether 19th-century-style territorial expansion has any place in 21st-century geopolitics.
Where Most Americans Agree
The Arctic region is strategically important for U.S. national security
China and Russia are expanding their presence in the Arctic and it deserves attention
Rare earth minerals and natural resources matter for American economic security
Climate change is opening new Arctic shipping routes and creating new strategic considerations
Greenland's location is geographically significant for military and economic purposes
Alliance relationships with democratic partners like Denmark are valuable
Any territorial changes should respect the self-determination of people involved
The U.S. should protect its strategic interests in the Arctic region
Source: Arctic Policy Polling, Foreign Policy Surveys 2024-2025
Current Perspectives from Both Sides
Understanding the full debate requires hearing what each side actually argues—not caricatures or strawmen.
Progressive Perspective
- •Trump's Greenland obsession is neo-colonial thinking that treats people and land as commodities to be bought
- •Threatening allies like Denmark with military or economic coercion is dangerous and alienates democratic partners
- •Greenlandic people have a right to self-determination—their land isn't for sale regardless of American desires
- •This rhetoric damages America's credibility and makes us look like an imperial bully
- •The focus should be on climate change in the Arctic, not territorial conquest
- •Trump's transactional approach to foreign policy treats alliances as business deals rather than shared values
Conservative Perspective
- •Trump is right to think strategically about American interests in the Arctic as China and Russia expand there
- •Greenland's strategic location and resources are too important to ignore in great power competition
- •The U.S. has successfully acquired territory before (Louisiana Purchase, Alaska) when strategic interests demanded it
- •Denmark hasn't adequately defended or developed Greenland—American investment could benefit everyone
- •Being willing to use economic and military leverage shows strength, not weakness
- •Liberal critics mock Trump but offer no alternative strategy for countering China and Russia in the Arctic
- •America First means protecting American strategic interests, including in the Arctic
These represent current talking points from each side of the political spectrum. Understanding both perspectives is essential for productive dialogue.
Evidence-Based Facts
Greenland has a population of about 57,000 people, predominantly Inuit, and has been self-governing under Danish sovereignty since 1979
Source: Government of Greenland
The U.S. already has Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base) in Greenland, a critical early warning radar installation
Source: U.S. Space Force
Greenland holds significant deposits of rare earth elements, uranium, and other minerals increasingly important for technology and defense
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
The U.S. offered to purchase Greenland in 1946 for $100 million; Denmark refused then as now
China has attempted investments in Greenland's mining and infrastructure, raising U.S. security concerns
Learn More
Department of Defense Arctic Strategy
U.S. strategic interests and security concerns in the Arctic region
U.S. Department of Defense
Wilson Center - Arctic Research
Nonpartisan research on Arctic geopolitics and climate
Wilson Center
Government of Greenland
Official information on Greenland's self-governance and perspectives
Naalakkersuisut (Greenland Self-Government)
Questions for Thoughtful Debate
How should the U.S. balance strategic interests in the Arctic with respecting allies and self-determination?
Is territorial expansion an appropriate strategy for 21st-century great power competition?
What alternative approaches could protect U.S. Arctic interests without threatening to purchase Greenland?
How should America respond to Chinese and Russian expansion in the Arctic?
Does Trump's willingness to use economic or military coercion strengthen or weaken America's position?
What's the right balance between strategic resource security and alliance relationships?
Should the U.S. increase investment in Arctic military capabilities regardless of Greenland acquisition?