Kathrine Frich
Republicans across the political spectrum are trying to convince the American public that buying Greenland would be a smart strategic move.
The idea of the United States acquiring Greenland has returned to the political spotlight after repeated remarks by President Donald Trump. He has framed the Arctic island as a national security necessity.
Trump has argued that US control of Greenland is needed to counter growing threats from Russia and China in the Arctic.
The president has gone further, saying that military action to obtain Greenland could not be ruled out. Those comments have raised concerns among US allies in Europe.
At the same time, Republicans across the political spectrum are trying to convince the American public that buying Greenland would be a smart strategic move.
They present it as vital for US security, Arctic influence and long-term geopolitical positioning.
1. Costly ambition
Buying Greenland would come at an enormous price. Estimates put the cost at around $1.1 trillion, at a time when US national debt already stands at roughly $22 trillion.
Critics argue that adding such a burden would make little sense when those funds could instead be used to reduce existing debt rather than expand it.
The financial commitment would not end with the purchase itself, as long-term obligations would quickly mount.
2. Strategic strain
Defending Greenland would be logistically complex and expensive. The vast Arctic territory would require constant deployment of ships, aircraft and personnel, driving up defence spending.
Questions have also been raised about whether American taxpayers would accept higher costs to protect such a remote region.
Opening airspace and increasing military traffic could further complicate relations with Canada, whose territory lies between the US mainland and Greenland.
3. Local rejection
Greenlandic leaders have repeatedly stated that the territory is not for sale. Both local authorities and the Danish government have been clear in their opposition.
As officials have put it: “We do not want to be Americans”. The population seeks greater autonomy, not a transfer of sovereignty.
Attempts to sway public opinion are widely seen as unlikely to succeed.
4. Alliance damage
Any unilateral US action would severely strain relations with Denmark and the wider NATO alliance. European leaders have warned that such a move would violate NATO principles.
Experts say it could trigger a serious alliance crisis, undermining decades of transatlantic cooperation and trust.
It would also weaken the credibility of US security guarantees to other allies.
5. Legal and moral risks
Seizing territory from a sovereign allied nation would violate international law and damage US global standing.
Such an action would contradict the democratic values Washington claims to defend, particularly the principle of self-determination.
Critics warn it would set a dangerous precedent.
6. Geopolitical backlash
Rather than strengthening US security, a takeover could inflame tensions with Russia and China.
With Alaska already bordering Russia, Greenland would add another sensitive frontier to defend.
Rivals could exploit divisions among Western allies, increasing global instability.
7. Limited payoff
The US already operates the Pituffik Space Base in Greenland under existing agreements with Denmark, allowing military access without ownership.
While Greenland has mineral and energy resources, harsh conditions and limited infrastructure make large-scale extraction commercially unviable.
Control alone would not change those realities.
