How trading, not invading, is Trump’s best – Latest News
Greenland fever is spiking again in Washington, DC — and the reckless rhetoric is alarming America’s allies.
President Donald Trump and senior aides have repeatedly said that the United States “needs” Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark, for “national security” causes, at occasions even refusing to rule out deploying army power to grab it.
Trump is proper to spotlight Greenland’s strategic significance to America’s security.
The island’s location provides it a very important position within the protection of the North American continent from airborne threats, which is why the Pentagon has maintained a army presence there since World War II.
Trouble is, Greenland’s not for sale, and not less than for now most Americans don’t need to take it — nor do Greenlanders need to be a part of the United States.
Even by Trump’s unorthodox requirements, the concept of utilizing US army power in opposition to territory belonging to a fellow NATO ally can be extraordinary, to say the least.
However, there’s no need for saber-rattling — the United States can meet all its Arctic security targets by way of present agreements with Greenland and Denmark.
Better but, Greenland’s authorities has clearly said it welcomes a deeper US relationship.
Rather than utilizing needlessly divisive language in opposition to a NATO accomplice, Trump ought to deal with strengthening an already important partnership.
The first step ought to be bettering transit and financial hyperlinks between the United States and Greenland.
Today, nicely below 1% of the territory’s exports go to the United States — and even fewer US exports go to Greenland.
American private-sector investment on the island stays sparse, and whereas Greenland has sought to improve its transport hyperlinks with North American ports for years — together with the deep-water port at Portland, Maine — they’ve but to materialize.
Air connectivity is additionally restricted. In 2024, a seasonal route from Newark to Nuuk turned the primary direct flight from the United States to Greenland in nearly twenty years.
Prior to that, US vacationers usually needed to fly to Europe after which back throughout the Atlantic to succeed in Greenland — an pointless impediment to nearer ties.
There’s no need for the United States to own Greenland to faucet its considerable natural sources, together with uncommon earth components crucial to fashionable applied sciences.
The lack of logistical infrastructure on the island and technological limitations now make profitable extraction troublesome — however this presents an alternative.
Get opinions and commentary from our columnists
Subscribe to our day by day Post Opinion publication!
Thanks for signing up!
Trump can actively encourage American corporations to accomplice with Greenlandic companies to responsibly develop these sources, bringing them to international markets and benefiting either side.
For instance, Washington might copy its own playbook and make a minerals deal much like the one just lately negotiated with Ukraine.
A joint US-Greenland investment fund tied to future useful resource revenues would ship all the things America wants on the island: provide security, infrastructure and strategic presence — with out questioning Danish or Greenlandic sovereignty.
If security is Trump’s concern, he ought to help Greenland strengthen its own defensive capabilities, not threaten invasion.
America’s present treaty preparations with Denmark and Greenland give the United States broad authority to considerably increase its army presence on the island. All that’s needed is political will in Washington.
Geopolitically, nonetheless, the larger problem for the United States is preserving cohesion with its longstanding transatlantic companions.
As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine enters its fourth yr, unity amongst allies is important — particularly as Trump seeks a diplomatic settlement.
Threatening to make use of power in opposition to a NATO ally undermines that unity and alarms America’s closest buddies, as Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni warned Friday.
Europe stays very important to US prosperity and security.
It is America’s largest export market, and 46 out of 50 states export more to Europe than to China — exports that translate straight into American jobs.
Europe is additionally the most important source of international direct investment within the United States, totaling roughly $4 trillion and supporting hundreds of thousands of staff.
Any motion that jeopardizes this relationship, like useless squabbling over Greenland, dangers critical financial penalties.
And Denmark is a model NATO ally: It deployed hundreds of troops to some of probably the most harmful elements of Afghanistan, was among the many first European international locations to struggle ISIS, and took part in NATO’s air marketing campaign in Libya.
Danish naval vessels have supported US-led anti-piracy missions off the Horn of Africa, whereas Denmark’s geography provides it control over entry to the strategically very important Baltic Sea.
Denmark is among the many largest contributors of army assist to Ukraine — and in response to Trump’s urging, it has invested billions in Arctic protection.
The United States wants more companions like Denmark, not fewer.
As the debate over Greenland continues in Washington, policymakers ought to keep the bigger strategic image in thoughts.
America can obtain its targets in Greenland with out annexation or buy, just by taking benefit of the various alternatives to deepen financial and transit ties.
At a time of continued Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, transatlantic unity — not 18th century-style land grabs — ought to stay America’s focus.
Luke Coffey is a Hudson Institute senior fellow.
