“I don’t really know what claim Denmark has to it, but it would be a very unfriendly act if they didn’t allow that to happen because it’s for the protection of the free world,” was the statement by freshly re-elected President Trump in January 2025 when asked about resistance to the US acquisition of Greenland. Perceived as a joke to be ignored during his first term, this claim has rapidly turned into an existential crisis for the West as Europe’s long-time security guarantor seeks to carve a chunk out of it. An increasingly isolationist America is making moves that have left its Western partners baffled. Many have attributed the initiative to buy Greenland to a wack, senseless idea by Trump to satiate his ego. While that may be true, the idea of buying Greenland is not a new one – in fact, over the past 150 years, there have been five attempts by the US to buy Greenland. The world has changed greatly since the first attempt in 1868, but the reasons for the US wanting Greenland have remained the same: regional security and natural resources.

American Persistence

Following the success of the Alaska Purchase in 1867, the US State Department turned its attention to Danish holdings in the Western hemisphere. An 1868 report noted that Greenland had much to offer the young American nation, not just strategically but in natural resources, primarily fisheries and, especially consequential today, mineral wealth. While America’s first bid failed, they tried again in 1910, offering Denmark recently acquired lands in the Philippines. However, this did not lead to anything as the Americans’ Loony Toons-esque scheme fell flat. The US proposed a land swap with Denmark to trade with Germany, helping Denmark get its desired land, but Denmark refused due to the deal’s complexity and lack of German involvement.

The Americans were left at nil in two for buying Greenland but tried again after the completion of the Panama Canal in 1914. Trying to find a way to ensure the security of American trade on the Caribbean side, Washington found itself going back to Denmark (again) in an attempt to purchase its islands in the region. Unlike Washington’s two attempts with Greenland, Denmark sold what is now called the US Virgin Islands for a total of $25 million ($620 million today) in 1917. The sale of these islands ingrained the idea that Denmark, while hesitant, could be convinced to sell Greenland if the timing (and pricing) were right. Today, Trump is the new face of the US desire to purchase the island. As a real estate tycoon, he has framed it as “essentially a large real estate deal,” that only his “expertise” could pull off.

An American Weak Spot

When Denmark fell to Hitler’s German forces in 1940, the US was quick to station troops in Greenland, in fear that the Nazis were going to seize the now undefended territory. For Washington, there were only two choices: take the island and ensure the continent’s safety or let it fall to another power, putting Europe’s war on America’s doorstep. The choice was simple: the first was an unfortunate necessity, the other was unacceptable.

After Denmark was liberated in 1945, troubles rose anew as the US refused to leave the island, aware of its strategic position against the USSR. In 1946, Washington offered Denmark $100 million ($1.6 billion today) in gold for the island. The American desire for Greenland was so strong that the US even considered giving away oil-rich territory in Alaska to sweeten the deal. Even though the island was considered a “military necessity,” the deal was blocked by opponents in Washington.

Finally, the NATO alliance paved a pathway for a compromise, and in 1951, the US was given permission to build and operate military bases on the island as part of the collective defence deal. This agreement eased many of the US’ security concerns. Security, however, was always only half the issue. While Greenland lacks much of the promised “green land” in its name, it still has much to offer.

The Cost of America’s Green Transition 

Modern-day realities and insecurities have revived the US interest in the world’s largest island. The opening up of the Arctic to trade has made Greenland the gateway between the Atlantic and the Arctic. Global warming has also made commercial endeavours on one of the most inhospitable lands an increasingly profitable venture, with mineral extraction being at the forefront of American commercial interests.

Greenland is also home to many rare earth minerals (REMs), key elements for modern technologies, most importantly in green technology. Currently, the world depends on an increasingly hostile China for REMs, with 60% of production and 85% of resource processing done in China. The EU and the US import virtually all of their REMs from China and are therefore at its mercy for these exports, something considered increasingly unacceptable.

The US fears getting entrapped in a new Middle East when looking for a source of REMs elsewhere, which has pushed Trump to view Greenland as the only safe option, even if he must take it by military force. In the end, a nearby land of 50,000 people would be comparatively cheap and quick to deal with.

The Last Thing America Needs to be Happy?

Throughout the last 150 years since the US first attempted to buy Greenland from Denmark, the idea has remained on the nation’s to-do list. For Trump, it is a way to push his personal agenda of self-reliance, soft isolationism and cementing his legacy as a “great” president. By putting a bill called the “Red, White, and Blueland Act of 2025” forward, Republicans have taken action to support Trump in this endeavour. If passed, it would allow Trump to not only buy Greenland but also rename it to “Red, White, and Blueland” – a name that sounds like a satirical attack on Trump’s agenda but is, in fact, a very real proposal.

What Trump and his Republican supporters have dismissed is the fact that the general American public does not care about Greenland. A poll conducted by Fox News, generally pro-Republican, found that 70% of voters are against Trump’s plan to acquire Greenland. Greenland and its people have also made their position on the issue clear. The newly elected prime minister put it succinctly: “President Trump says that the United States ‘will get Greenland.’ Let me be clear: The United States will not get it. We do not belong to anyone else. We decide our own future.” This follows Vice President Vance and his wife’s failed visit to Greenland, where they had to limit the trip to the US base to avoid further embarrassment after making claims that Greenlanders wanted to be American.

Trump did not start Washington’s desire for the island, but as he steers the US into a new geopolitical position, one where the Arctic and REMs play a critical role, he has become obligated (as blunt and brutish as he may be in doing it) to close the deal on this 150-year-old issue of US foreign policy.

Writer: Patrick Montoya, Editor: Marlene Palan