Trump’s Greenland Strategy Isn’t Imperialism—It’s National Security Common Sense

When President Donald Trump renewed his call for U.S. control of Greenland this week, the predictable chorus of critics erupted with accusations of imperialism, recklessness, and diplomatic incompetence. Denmark’s Prime Minister demanded Trump “stop the threats,” while European commentators clutched their pearls at the audacity of American ambition.

But here’s what the outrage machine is missing: Trump’s focus on Greenland isn’t about colonial expansion or ego-driven land grabs. It’s about confronting the hard realities of 21st-century geopolitics that our allies have been too comfortable ignoring. While critics hyperventilate over diplomatic niceties, serious threats to Western security are mounting in the Arctic—and America needs leaders willing to address them head-on, even when it makes Europeans uncomfortable.

The Strategic Reality: Greenland Is Already Critical to American Defense

Let’s start with facts that should alarm anyone concerned about national security. The United States already operates Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base) on Greenland’s northwestern coast—the Department of Defense’s northernmost installation. This isn’t some minor outpost. It’s a critical early warning system for ballistic missile detection, a hub for space surveillance, and a key component of America’s Arctic defense architecture.

Greenland’s geographic position gives it unparalleled strategic value. Situated between North America and Europe, controlling key Arctic shipping lanes as ice melts, and providing crucial positioning for monitoring both Russian and Chinese activities in the region, Greenland represents what military strategists call a “chokepoint”—a location so valuable that whoever controls it holds disproportionate power.

The U.S. military has recognized this since 1951, when Thule Air Base was constructed in total secrecy. We’ve maintained a presence there for over seven decades, operating under an agreement with Denmark that grants us military access while Denmark retains sovereignty. But here’s the uncomfortable question Trump is forcing us to confront: Is that arrangement still sufficient in an era of intensifying great power competition?

The China Problem: While We Debate, Beijing Acts

While American politicians and European bureaucrats debate diplomatic protocols, China has been quietly positioning itself to exploit Greenland’s vast mineral wealth. And this isn’t about abstract economic competition—it’s about the foundational resources that will determine who dominates the technologies of the future.

Greenland holds some of the world’s largest deposits of rare earth elements—critical minerals essential for everything from electric vehicle motors and wind turbines to advanced military systems and communications technology. Currently, China controls approximately 90% of global rare earth processing, giving Beijing enormous leverage over Western supply chains and technological development.

Chinese companies have actively pursued mining investments in Greenland, recognizing what should be obvious to anyone paying attention: whoever controls access to these resources will shape the balance of power for decades to come. A 2025 analysis noted that Greenland’s strategic shift represents a potential “game-changer in the global rare earth race,” offering the West an opportunity to reduce dependence on Chinese supply chains.

But there’s a catch: Greenland’s current political leadership has shown ambivalence about large-scale mining development, and Denmark—while nominally in charge of Greenland’s foreign affairs—lacks both the resources and apparently the will to fully develop these strategic assets or prevent Chinese influence from growing.

Trump’s position is essentially this: If Denmark won’t or can’t protect Western interests in Greenland, and if Greenland itself lacks the capacity for full independence while resisting the development that could fund it, then the United States—which already guarantees the island’s defense—should have a more direct role in securing resources vital to American national security.

That’s not imperialism. That’s recognizing reality.

The Independence Question: A Path Forward, Not an Obstacle

Critics portray Trump’s interest as trampling on Greenlandic self-determination, but this misrepresents both the situation and what Greenlanders themselves want. Recent polling shows that 84% of Greenlanders support independence from Denmark—a dramatic increase from 67.7% in 2019. All six major Greenlandic political parties support eventual independence.

But here’s what the independence movement faces: Greenland’s economy currently depends heavily on Danish subsidies, which fund approximately half of the government budget. The island’s population of roughly 57,000 people relies primarily on fishing exports and Danish financial support. Denmark recently pledged $253 million between 2026 and 2029 for infrastructure and healthcare—continuing a pattern of dependence that makes true independence economically unfeasible under current conditions.

This creates a paradox: Greenlanders want independence, but can’t afford it without either developing their mineral resources or finding a new partner willing to provide the financial support and security guarantees currently supplied by Denmark.

Trump’s approach—however bluntly stated—offers a potential solution. The United States could provide the investment, infrastructure development, and market access that would make Greenlandic independence economically viable, while securing American access to strategic resources and military positioning. This would require Greenland’s consent, of course, but dismissing the possibility as “imperialism” ignores that it might actually advance Greenlandic self-determination more effectively than the current arrangement.

Denmark’s Hypocrisy: Sovereignty Without Responsibility

Denmark’s indignant response to Trump deserves scrutiny. Danish leaders invoke sovereignty and international norms, but let’s examine what Denmark has actually delivered for Greenland.

Denmark colonized Greenland and maintained it as a colony until 1953. Even after granting “home rule” in 1979 and expanded self-government in 2009, Denmark has kept Greenland in a state of dependence—providing just enough financial support to maintain the relationship while Greenland remains unable to achieve true independence. Denmark controls Greenland’s foreign affairs and defense, yet lacks the military capacity to actually defend the island against serious threats.

Meanwhile, Denmark benefits from the relationship. Greenland’s vast territory makes Denmark geographically one of the largest countries in Europe and gives Copenhagen a seat at the table in Arctic affairs that it wouldn’t otherwise have. Denmark gets strategic importance on the cheap—claiming sovereignty over a massive Arctic territory while America foots the bill for its defense and Denmark provides subsidy payments that keep Greenlanders dependent.

When Trump suggests this arrangement no longer serves American interests, Danish politicians respond with outrage. But they offer no serious alternative. They won’t grant Greenland full independence. They won’t adequately develop Greenland’s economy. They won’t strengthen their own military to actually defend what they claim to own. They simply want to maintain a comfortable status quo where they reap the benefits of sovereignty without bearing its full responsibilities.

That’s not a moral position—it’s freeloading dressed up as principle.

American Interests and Western Security

At its core, Trump’s Greenland focus reflects a fundamental conservative principle: America must protect its own interests and cannot rely on allies who lack either the capability or will to address serious threats.

The Arctic is rapidly becoming a contested region. Russia has been militarizing its Arctic territories for years. China, despite having no Arctic territory, has declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and is actively pursuing economic and strategic footholds in the region. Climate change is opening new shipping routes and making resource extraction more feasible, intensifying competition for Arctic access and control.

In this environment, the current arrangement—where America provides military protection for a Danish territory that Denmark can’t adequately defend or develop—increasingly looks like a liability rather than an asset. Trump is asking the question that should have been asked years ago: Why should American taxpayers continue defending territory that benefits Denmark’s prestige while China positions itself to exploit resources critical to American technological and military superiority?

The answer from establishment politicians, both in Europe and among American critics, amounts to “because that’s how we’ve always done it.” But preserving comfortable diplomatic arrangements isn’t a strategy—it’s inertia masquerading as policy.

The Path Forward: Strength Through Clarity

Trump’s approach to Greenland—direct, transactional, focused on American interests—offends diplomatic sensibilities precisely because it challenges assumptions that have guided Western policy for decades. Those assumptions held that maintaining alliance structures and respecting traditional arrangements would ensure stability and security.

But the world has changed. China’s rise as a peer competitor, Russia’s willingness to use military force to revise borders, and the opening of the Arctic as a domain of strategic competition have rendered many Cold War-era arrangements obsolete. Clinging to them out of habit or fear of appearing “imperialist” doesn’t preserve peace—it invites adversaries to exploit Western hesitation.

Trump’s willingness to publicly discuss U.S. control of Greenland—including in his recent interview with The Atlantic where he said America “absolutely” needs Greenland and declined to rule out using force—serves several purposes. It signals to China and Russia that America is serious about protecting its Arctic interests. It pressures Denmark to either step up its own commitment to Greenland’s development and defense or acknowledge that the current arrangement isn’t sustainable. And it opens a conversation about what Greenland’s future should actually look like, rather than pretending the status quo can continue indefinitely.

Is Trump’s rhetoric aggressive? Yes. Does it make European diplomats uncomfortable? Absolutely. But discomfort isn’t an argument. The question isn’t whether Trump’s approach is polite—it’s whether it addresses real threats that our allies have been content to ignore.

Conclusion: National Security Requires Difficult Choices

The controversy over Greenland ultimately reflects a deeper divide in how we think about American power and responsibility. One view—prevalent among establishment politicians and European allies—holds that America should subordinate its interests to alliance management and diplomatic convention, even when those conventions no longer serve our security needs.

The alternative view, which Trump represents, holds that America must be willing to pursue its vital interests even when doing so challenges comfortable arrangements and provokes criticism. This doesn’t mean abandoning allies or rejecting diplomacy—it means recognizing that true leadership sometimes requires making others uncomfortable in service of necessary change.

Greenland matters. Its strategic location, its resources, and its role in Arctic security make it relevant to American interests in ways that will only intensify in coming decades. The current arrangement—American military presence and defense guarantees combined with Danish sovereignty and Greenlandic dependence—increasingly looks inadequate to address the challenges we face.

Trump’s willingness to say this out loud, to challenge Denmark’s position, and to put Greenland’s future on the table for serious discussion isn’t reckless imperialism. It’s overdue honesty about a situation that too many have been content to ignore.

The question isn’t whether Trump’s approach is diplomatic. It’s whether we’re serious about protecting American interests and competing effectively with adversaries who aren’t constrained by our scruples. On Greenland, as on so many issues, Trump is forcing us to confront realities we’d rather avoid—and that’s exactly what leadership looks like.

Call to Action

The debate over Greenland will intensify in coming months as Trump pursues this issue. Stay informed about developments in Arctic security, rare earth mineral competition, and Chinese strategic positioning. Share this article with others who care about American security and aren’t afraid to challenge conventional diplomatic wisdom. And most importantly, demand that your elected representatives take Arctic security seriously—because while critics debate Trump’s tone, our adversaries are acting. America needs leaders willing to protect our interests, even when it makes allies uncomfortable. The future of Western security may well depend on it.