Is the White House calculating the Cost of taking over Greenland?
According to The Washington Post, the White House is calculating the cost of taking over control with Greenland. Photo: The White House
The Washington Post (WP) recently wrote that the White House is calculating the potential cost of taking over Greenland. If one believes the reputable newspaper, we are witnessing Donald Trump’s most concrete effort to follow words by actions with regards to Greenland.
President Trump actually means it. That, we have realized. At the same time, the news article indicates that a military annexation is not the most immediate move, but that the U.S. will use soft power and economic incitements to seduce Greenland.
Three special points of interest in WP’s article
If we take a closer look at WP’s article, there are three points we should pay extra attention to.
First, it is worth noticing that at least three issues rank higher than Greenland on Trump’s security political to-do list for 2025: 1) A peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine, 2) A peace agreement between Israel and Hammas, 3) Increased deterrence of Iran.
The strive for fulfilling those ambitions will take up enormous resources, so in that light it makes sense when a source characterizes Greenland as “a bonus play” further down the list. In other words: Greenland does occupy a great deal of the communication – where symbolic visits and extreme utterances attract international attention – but we should not expect big substantial initiatives right away.
Secondly, the purpose is that Greenland should actively accept the offer if the U.S. succeeds in presenting itself as a desirable alternative to Denmark. On the one hand, the U.S. needs to offer a deal that far overshadows the current bloc grant and other financial transfers from Denmark, while, on the other hand, cultivate the impression among Greenlanders that the U.S. is, indeed, a trustworthy partner.
However, this is the Trump administration’s greatest challenge: trust. While they are good at influencing the media agenda, the latest reactions from Greenland leave no doubt: laughter in the Congress when Trump spoke about “the incredible people of Greenland”, threats of taking Greenland by force, and J.D. Vance’s recent visit to Pituffik Space Base have undoubtedly worsened the Greenlanders’ trust in the U.S.
Thirdly, the calculation is based on cost-benefit: What will the U.S. gain from Greenland in exchange for the many billions? Thus, it is an ice-cold calculation that reflects Trump’s geoeconomic approach to international politics. Lately, we have seen this logic play out in relation to Ukraine where subsoil riches should be given in return for U.S. military support.
If the U.S. similarly expects that the offer to Greenland should be covered by income from mining activities – as outlined by the organization American Action Forum – it is counter to the strong Greenlandic wish of enhanced autonomy. When the Self-Government was introduced in 2009, the right to its sub-soil was a crucial element in the negotiations with Denmark, so if they give up this right in return for cold cash, it will undoubtedly be a step back on the independence ladder.
Denmark’s and Greenland’s next moves
While waiting to see if the White House is actually putting together an offer, the government offices in Nuuk and Copenhagen are considering their next moves.
One option is that the respective Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Vivian Motzfeldt, will receive an invitation to visit the White House like we saw in the fall of 2019, when their predecessors – Jeppe Kofod and Ane Lone Bagger – met with Mike Pompeo in Washington D.C. just few months after Trump first aired the idea of purchasing Greenland.
As close allies, after all, and given the gravity of the situation, Denmark and Greenland would not be in a position to turn down such an invitation. However, if they receive and accept it they will have to be extra cautious of which narrative the visit will be part of. If the U.S. succeeds in framing a visit as the beginning of a negotiation process, Denmark and Greenland would risk that the meeting will be translated into a willingness to cede territory. That would be a defeat in itself, so Denmark and Greenland must avoid it at all costs.
Instead, they would be wise to continue reinforcing the narrative that the U.S. already has de facto military control over Greenland, and that they can enhance their military presence and invest in the mining potential without having to buy the country. At the same time, they must strongly signal to the U.S. and the rest of the world that they do not tolerate threats to the state’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. This will emphasize that annexing Greenland would be against international law, while it would further strengthen the sympathy among Denmark’s and Greenland’s close allies.
Another option is that we will see American actors fueling the narrative about Denmark being a bad partner for Greenland. As such, official speeches, social media and other kinds of influence might be used to drive a wedge between Denmark and Greenland, while portraying the U.S. as a better partner without the same burdensome baggage. If the U.S. can simultaneously turn each of the 57,000 Greenlanders into millionaires, more people will be receptive to American overtures. How the U.S. citizens would react to such a deferential treatment is then another question worth taking into account.
In order to counter such influence, Denmark and Greenland must continue on the path where they together deal with their shared dark chapters, and together create a plan for how Greenland can take the next step on the independence ladder – without becoming part of the U.S.
A difficult balancing act
If the White House is calculating the cost of taking over Greenland, it is a strong indication that Donald Trump intends to follow up his words by action, but that those actions are more likely to involve economic offers than military annexation.
Denmark and Greenland are in the middle of a very difficult balancing act where they, on the one hand, must portray themselves as close allies and speak reason through highlighting the many opportunities that the U.S. already has in Greenland per the Defence Agreement of 1951 and the Igaliku Agreement of 2004. On the other hand, it is absolutely essential for Denmark and Greenland to clearly refuse any attempts to initiate negotiations regarding transfer of territory.
Greenland is undoubtedly in the most difficult situation. It is true that they have a good negotiating position in terms of potentially profiting economically from the amplified American attention, but at the same time they are victims of frequent threats from the world’s only superpower that wants to take over the country “one way or another”. Such statements cannot help but disturb one’s sleep at night, and make one dream of going somewhere where Trump does not dictate the agenda.
A Danish version was published in Altinget on April 10, 2025.
Marc Jacobsen is an Associate Professor at the Royal Danish Defence College’s Centre for Arctic Security Studies where he researches security politics and diplomacy in the Arctic. Marc was also a Member – in various positions – of The Arctic Institute between 2013 and 2020. He recently co-edited the book ‘Greenland in Arctic Security’ which is open access here.