By Mike Dodd, USMC (Ret.)
I was fortunate to attend President Trump’s inauguration this week, and experience firsthand the energy flowing through our nation’s capital. The newly sworn-in President made a statement in the Oval Office on an idea that has been a highly discussed topic the last few weeks: “Greenland is necessary not for us, it’s necessary for international security,” he said. “You have Russian boats all over the place, you have China’s boats all over the place—warships—and they [Denmark] can’t maintain it.”
It is crucial to understand the value President Trump sees in Greenland. While it may be over 3,000 miles away from the United States and have a population of only just over 56,000 people, it contains unmatched strategic importance to our national security.
President Trump’s interest in purchasing Greenland first came to light in 2019. Though his idea was met with skepticism at the time, it wasn’t unprecedented. In fact, discussions about acquiring Greenland date back to 1867, Secretary of State William Seward explored the possibility. And again in1946, when the Truman administration offered $100 million to Denmark for the island. Greenland’s unique position at the crossroads of the Arctic has long been recognized as a critical geopolitical asset.
Greenland’s location makes it a sentinel in the Arctic. As melting ice opens up new shipping lanes, the region is poised to become an economic and military flashpoint. With Russian and Chinese vessels already making their presence known, the island’s proximity to North America is of undeniable importance. Thule Air Base, a U.S. military installation in Greenland, underscores this point, serving as a critical outpost for early missile warning and space surveillance.
Beyond its strategic location, Greenland is rich in natural resources, including rare earth elements such as antimony and neodymium, which are crucial for modern technologies and defense systems. However, Denmark has struggled to invest in Greenland’s infrastructure and capitalize on these resources. As President Trump aptly pointed out, “It’s expensive for Denmark to keep it.” This sentiment is echoed by Danish officials who have long grappled with the economic burden of supporting Greenland’s development.
Acquiring Greenland would secure significant environmental and economic opportunities for the United States. As Arctic ice recedes, access to untapped oil and gas reserves becomes increasingly viable, and controlling these resources would bolster America’s energy security. Moreover, ownership of Greenland would allow the U.S. to shape policies governing Arctic shipping routes, which are set to rival traditional trade lanes like the Suez and Panama Canals.
To dismiss the idea of securing Greenland—whether through purchase, strategic treaty, or expanded military presence—as outlandish is to ignore both historic precedence and strategic foresight. Greenland represents an unparalleled opportunity to bolster national security, secure resource independence, and ensure the U.S. plays a leading role in shaping the Arctic’s future, much like Guam or Okinawa serve as strategic hubs in the Pacific.
As President Trump’s remarks suggest, this isn’t about empire-building; it’s about safeguarding our nation and its allies in an increasingly competitive and uncertain world. The ice may be melting, but America’s resolve to lead in the Arctic must remain rock solid.
Comments