By: Jessica A. Dennehy
Donald Trump’s Round Two: How Far is He Willing to Go? (Image: slate.com)
Donald Trump’s second-term political policies take the bold promises of his first term to even greater extremes. Under a new wave of MAGA initiatives, “Making America Great Again” now supposedly includes annexing Greenland, adding Canada as the 51st state, and reclaiming control of the Panama Canal. While it’s easy to dismiss the President’s statements, these proposals do raise an important question: Are there any real benefits to expanding America’s reach? And just how far might Trump go to make these ambitions a reality?
Greenland, the largest island on Earth, holds immense potential despite its small population of only 56,000 people. Though it has been under Danish control for over 300 years, the island is rich in untapped mineral resources hidden beneath its icy surface—resources that could make Greenland a valuable addition to the American Empire. Additionally, as the Arctic ice melts due to climate change, new shipping routes are opening up, attracting increasing interest from global powers. China and Russia have already attempted to increase their military and economic influence in the region, making Greenland’s strategic position even more significant. In recent years, President-elect Donald Trump has reignited his interest in Greenland, a desire that first surfaced during his 2019 term when he proposed purchasing the island. Now, he has refused to rule out using economic or military force to secure control. Greenland’s potential for natural resources like rare earth minerals, oil, and gas makes it a prime target for American expansion, but both Danish and Greenlandic officials have firmly rejected the idea, with Greenland’s leadership asserting, “We do not want to be Americans,” and Denmark stating that Greenland is not for sale.
Greenlandic independence is widely seen as inevitable, although its timeline remains uncertain. If and when Greenland votes for independence, Denmark is likely to accept and ratify the decision, given the two regions long-standing historical relationship. With this eventuality in mind, Donald Trump Jr. has already visited Greenland, sparking controversy with a staged MAGA demonstration where officials offered food in exchange for the support of homeless Greenlanders. While these actions were undoubtedly provocative, the reality is that Greenland would likely hesitate to pursue full independence without strong guarantees, particularly when it comes to maintaining the subsidies it currently receives from Denmark. These subsidies fund vital services like healthcare and the welfare system, which are crucial to Greenland’s economy. In this context, Trump’s aggressive economic rhetoric could be leveraged as a form of pressure on Denmark. By threatening to drastically increase tariffs on Danish or even EU goods, the U.S. could push Denmark into concessions regarding Greenland’s future. If Trump were to adopt this approach, it would be an attempt to use economic muscle to isolate Denmark, while forcing them to either relinquish control of Greenland or agree to the terms set by the U.S.
Another possible approach Trump may take centers around the growing geopolitical tension in the Arctic, particularly as climate change accelerates. The melting ice is opening up new trade routes, and this increased navigability has raised concerns about Russia and China asserting greater control in the region. Both countries have been actively trying to expand their influence in the Arctic, which creates a potential security risk for Greenland—along with the rest of North America. Trump could theoretically use this situation as a chance to secure U.S. interests by pushing Denmark to either bolster Greenland’s defense or allow the U.S. to intervene. As Elisabet Svane, a chief political correspondent for Politiken newspaper, remarked, Trump’s message is clear: “What was important in what Trump said was that Denmark has to fulfill its obligations in the Arctic or it’s got to let the U.S. do it.”
A more extreme approach, though still a possibility, would be military intervention, which Trump has not ruled out. Given the significant U.S. military presence in Greenland, with American bases and personnel already stationed there, the U.S. could potentially take control of the island relatively easily. However, such a move would undoubtedly provoke a major international crisis, alienating Denmark and upsetting global diplomacy. Svane pointed the risks out, saying, “[Trump] He’s saying it’s legitimate for us to take this piece of land… If we take him really seriously, this is a bad omen for the whole of the Western alliance.” Military action would not only strain U.S.-Denmark relations but could also fracture NATO and undermine the Western alliance. If the U.S. were to take this route, it would almost certainly lead to a breakdown of international norms, with profound diplomatic repercussions for America.
While the idea of Trump pursuing Greenland may seem unlikely, the fact that he has raised it so early in his second term is worth noting. If such a bold proposal is already on the table, it raises questions about what other actions he might consider in pursuit of his MAGA agenda. What other moves might follow that push boundaries, both domestically and internationally? The uncertainty surrounding his next steps leaves much to consider about the direction his administration could take.
