
<p>Trump is known for his tough talk. It has worked to his –and the United States’ – benefit in many instances. It got NATO members to increase their contributions. It got universities to change their woke policies. It brought about a cease fire in Gaza. Sometimes the tough talk required action – as in Venezuela and Iran.</p>



<p>In terms of Greenland, the tough talk may have made Trump’s goal more unlikely – perhaps even impossible.</p>



<p>We need to put the Greenland issue into both historic and geopolitical perspective.</p>



<p><strong>History</strong></p>



<p>Making Greenland part of the United States as a state or territory has been an idea almost as old as America. The ink was hardly dry on the Constitution when there was talk of Greenland as part of the United States “manifest destiny.” The talk got more serious around the time the United States purchased Alaska from Russia. Inquiries were made, but they were rejected. In a secret offer, President Truman offered Denmark 100 million USD for the ice-covered barren island. The offer was rejected.</p>



<p><strong>Geopolitical Importance</strong></p>



<p>Greenland is more important to the United States today than at any time in history. It sits between North America and Russia. In view of the adversarial relationship between Moscow and Washington, that fact has gained significance.</p>



<p>Russia has staked operations in the Arctic north of Greenland – and has maintained regular military and commercial routes along the Greenland shoreline.</p>



<p>In addition to its strategic location, Greenland is a treasure trove of natural resources – especially those associated with modern technologies, such as rare earth elements, oil, gas, and a list of critical metals and elements.</p>



<p><strong>Denmark’s and Greenland’s Reaction</strong></p>



<p>Trump said the United States would acquire Greenland “the easy way or the hard way”. He did not specify what the “hard way” would be, but he refused to rule out military action – and most folks interpreted it as military action.</p>



<p>That would create a problem for NATO that some argue would result in the end of NATO. Since every NATO member – including Denmark and Greenland are part of NATO, they would trigger Article 5, which states that an attack on one NATO nation is an attack on all. That conundrum could be resolved by booting Denmark out of NATO – which Trump has thrown on the pile of options.</p>



<p>Despite his bellicose language, most observers do not believe Trump will invade Greenland. Louisiana Republican Senator John Kennedy said that invading Greenland would be “weaponsâgrade stupid” – and added, “Trump is not weapons-grade stupid”.</p>



<p>If intimating the use of the military was merely a negotiating tactic, it appears to have backfired. In January 2025, the Patriot Poll indicated that 57.3 percent of the people of Greenland favored joining the United States. That coincided with statements from Denmark that they would relinquish control of Greenland if the population voted for independence. Seemed like a golden opportunity – and one that I wrote about at the time.</p>



<p>Trump’s tough talk and implied use of the military to take Greenland by force appear to have offended both the Greenlanders and the Danes. Leaders of both governments have now firmly declared that Greenland will not be part of the United States – most recently after meeting at the White House.</p>



<p><strong>The Status Quo</strong></p>



<p>Currently, the United States has a cooperative relationship with Greenland. America has military bases on the island. We have access to natural resources. Up until recently, Greenlanders have welcomed American partnership. Does America gain significantly by taking over Greenland?</p>



<p><strong>Continuing Negotiations</strong></p>



<p>One surprising element in the controversy is the fact that the leaders of Greenland and Denmark agreed to come to Washington to negotiate. Even more surprising was the fact that they said they would be open to further negotiations. That sounds like they have not completely closed the door. Perhaps their version of tough talk.</p>



<p>There might have been more receptivity to Trump’s proposal had he not threatened them with an invasion. The question is: Is the Greenland/Denmark rejection chiseled in granite or written on the wind? Is there still room for negotiation? Or will Trump play the military card? Methinks we have not heard the last of the Americanization of Greenland.</p>



<p>So, there ‘tis.</p>

Did Trump’s Tough Talk on Greenland Backfire?
