This recent Trump Greenland bid has been getting a lot of attention. As well it should. Since Donald Trump has taken office (again) a startling narrative surrounding Greenland entered headlines. The President keeps floating plans for the autonomous Danish territory. He first sent his son and influencer Charlie Kirk. More recently, he involved Vice President J.D. Vance. JD Vance and his wife recently visited Greenland and got an icy cold reception, proving they were unwanted.
Whether or not there is a strategic advantage to having access to this land, the reality is, the controlling interests of the land do not want to sell it. That might be obvious to you, dear reader. You know who else it should be obvious to? Donald Trump.
In fact, somehow Trump’s first bid for Greenland was memoryholed.
The rhetoric, the push for buying Greenland, and the rest of the political posturing is not new. It’s a rehash of the same proposition Trump made back in 2019. Yes he did. At the time it was dismissed as absurd and then quickly forgotten in the chaos of Trump’s first impeachment and then his declaration of emergency over COVID-19.
Now, the Greenland conversation is back – but it’s no longer just a real estate discussion. It’s wrapped in a military and geopolitical urgency that places Greenland at the heart of a widening Arctic land grab and the nascent threat of Northern Hemisphere intercontinental missile warfare.
How Trump’s Greenland Bid Got Buried
In August 2019, Donald Trump proposed buying Greenland from Denmark. Yes, he wanted to literally purchase the island – an autonomous territory of Denmark that houses Thule Air Base, a critical early-warning site for U.S. missile defense. The idea was quickly dismissed as “absurd” by Danish officials, and within a few months, Trump found himself embroiled in the first impeachment trial. So, we all forget about this.
Trump has resurrected the idea as a critical step to counteract Russian military advances in the Arctic. That is the most charitable interpretation for why this is happening, even if the true intent is something far more sinister buried under the ice.
The Arctic has been an international contest since (ironically) the 1st cold war.
The Arctic Is A New Frontier For World Warfare…Again
For all of the economic partnership language that’s floated in the Trump-supportive media, the President has made it clear that obtaining Greenland isn’t just about access to resources. But of course, he wants their natural resources like rare Earth minerals, just like in Ukraine.
In terms of what Americans should concern themselves with, it is very serious:
- Russia’s Arctic Dominance:
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia has aggressively reasserted itself in the Arctic, rebuilding bases, deploying nuclear icebreakers, and claiming a growing military footprint. Their Northern Fleet has expanded, and they’ve even conducted hypersonic missile tests in Arctic waters. Russia’s ability to project power in the Arctic is now unmatched. - The U.S. Icebreaker Deficit:
Meanwhile, the U.S. has a single, aging heavy icebreaker – the Polar Star – which is nearing the end of its lifespan. With ice caps receding and new shipping lanes opening, the lack of U.S. icebreaker capacity in the Arctic leaves us with limited maneuverability in a region of growing geopolitical importance. - Even Canada has an insufficient number of icebreakers compared to Russia, but they do have a significant number of them compared to the United States. The recent political disturbances Trump is causing with this tariff proposals are creating dangerous separation between America and our northern neighbor.
- Greenland’s Strategic Location:
If the U.S. were to gain influence over Greenland – whether through formal military agreements, infrastructure partnerships, or a more ambitious land acquisition – it would open up a key strategic position in the Arctic. It could serve as a springboard for advancing U.S. presence and power, especially in the face of Russia’s escalating Arctic efforts.
Russian ICBM and Hypersonic Missiles
There’s a new threat emerging in the Arctic that American defense systems were never designed to counter – the ICBM and hypersonic missile threat from the north.
- Northern Hemisphere Vulnerability:
Traditionally, the U.S. has focused missile defense capabilities against threats from the South and East (i.e., Iran, North Korea, and China). The idea of being threatened from the Arctic North, however, is relatively new. In a potential global conflict, hypersonic missiles or ICBMs launched from Russian Arctic bases or submarines could reach U.S. shores in minutes. - Missile Defense in the Arctic:
Greenland’s proximity to the U.S. makes it a crucial outpost for missile defense. - In 2025, military experts are beginning to recognize the strategic value of forward-deployed radar systems, anti-missile interceptors, and satellite surveillance systems stationed in the Arctic – especially to counter the hypersonic threats from Russia.
When Does the Absurd Become Essential?
Trump’s previous Greenland bid was ignored, or forgotten. Whether it is about buying land for the sake of land – or if it is about gaining control over a critical location that could be used for military infrastructure aimed at defending the U.S. homeland in the face of emerging Arctic missile threats – remains to be seen.
What’s extraordinary about this is how historical amnesia has erased this entire conversation from public memory. We treat Trump’s Greenland bid as a laughable one-off, but in 2025, it’s suddenly strategic policy – and for very legitimate reasons.
At the heart of this is a military need – not just economic or political whims. Greenland represents one of the last remaining strategic outposts where the United States could assert dominance in the Arctic, counter Russian military expansion, and defend against hypersonic missile attacks. Without it, the U.S. finds itself sidelined in a region rapidly becoming the next Cold War battleground.
If Greenland Is A Strategic Necessity, America Needs Genuine Diplomacy
Trump’s Greenland bid may have been absurd – but it has also been a strategic foresight that never got the attention it deserved. With Russia’s growing military influence and the U.S. lagging behind in icebreaker capabilities, Greenland is increasingly the only option for securing the Northern Hemisphere against the new geopolitical and missile threats emerging from the Arctic.
If Trump’s revival of this idea in 2025 finally brings that conversation to the forefront, it won’t be because it’s something new – it’ll be because it’s finally something we can no longer afford to ignore.
But, Trump is the wrong man to make the argument.
So will the conversation move forward, or be put on ice?
