In a move that has reignited international tensions, the White House is actively studying the financial implications of controlling Greenland as a U.S. territory, according to a report from The Washington Post. The analysis, which marks the most concrete step yet toward realizing President Donald Trump’s persistent desire to acquire the Danish-controlled island, focuses on the costs of providing government services to Greenland’s roughly 58,000 residents and the potential revenue from its vast natural resources, including rare earth minerals critical for technology and defense industries. As of today, April 2, 2025, the controversial proposal is drawing sharp criticism from Denmark, Greenlandic leaders, and global observers, while raising questions about the strategic, economic, and ethical ramifications of such a territorial acquisition.
The White House’s current efforts involve detailed estimates of what it would cost to maintain Greenland as a U.S. territory, a process that includes calculating the expense of replacing Denmark’s annual subsidies, which amount to approximately $600 million to support the island’s public services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Sources familiar with the discussions reveal that one option under consideration is to offer Greenland a more lucrative financial deal than Denmark currently provides, with one official stating, “The point is, we’ll pay you more than Denmark does.” Additionally, the administration is assessing potential revenue streams from Greenland’s natural resources, which include rare earth minerals, uranium, and estimated offshore reserves of 50 billion barrels of oil and gas. However, experts caution that the harsh Arctic climate, limited infrastructure, and Greenland’s own environmental policies could complicate large-scale resource extraction, potentially undermining the economic benefits the U.S. hopes to gain.
Trump’s fixation on Greenland dates back to his first term, when he first floated the idea of purchasing the island in 2019, calling it a “large real estate deal” that would cement his legacy. At the time, the proposal was met with swift rejection from both Denmark and Greenland, with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen calling the idea “absurd” and Greenlandic leaders asserting, “We are not for sale.” The notion of acquiring Greenland is not new to U.S. history—previous attempts were made in 1867 by Secretary of State William H. Seward and in 1946 by President Harry Truman, who offered Denmark $100 million (equivalent to $1.6 billion today). Both efforts failed, reflecting Denmark’s steadfast commitment to retaining control over the territory, which has been part of the Danish realm since the early 18th century, initially as a colony before gaining home rule in 1979 and expanded self-governance in 2009.
Greenland’s strategic value is undeniable. Located between the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans, the island sits at a critical chokepoint for shipping and military operations, including submarine routes vital for nuclear powers. The U.S. already maintains a significant presence through Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule Air Base), established during World War II and operated under a 1951 defense agreement with Denmark. The base has been a cornerstone of U.S. Arctic strategy, hosting ballistic missile warning systems and supporting NATO’s northern flank. Trump and his allies, including Vice President JD Vance, argue that full control of Greenland is essential for national security, particularly to counter Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic. Vance, during a provocative visit to Greenland on March 28, 2025, emphasized that the island’s strategic importance and Trump’s “desires” cannot be ignored, a statement that further strained U.S.-Danish relations.
The economic allure of Greenland lies in its untapped resources. The island boasts significant deposits of rare earth minerals, which are crucial for manufacturing everything from smartphones to military equipment. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that Greenland’s offshore regions hold up to 17.5 billion barrels of undiscovered oil and 148 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, though extraction remains challenging due to environmental concerns and logistical hurdles. A 2019 study by the American Action Forum values Greenland’s mineral and energy assets at approximately $4.4 trillion, though this drops to $2.7 trillion if oil and gas are excluded due to Greenland’s 2021 decision to halt new exploration licenses over climate concerns. Critics, including Alex Jacquez, a former Biden administration official, argue that the economic payoff is speculative at best, describing the plan as “cover for Trump’s colonial fantasies” and a potential boon for his connected investors rather than a sound policy.
Greenland’s residents, predominantly Indigenous Inuit, are largely opposed to U.S. control. A January 2025 opinion survey finds that 85% of Greenlanders reject the idea of becoming part of the U.S., with only 6% in favor. The sentiment is echoed by local leaders like Prime Minister Múte Egede, who declares, “Greenland belongs to Greenlanders,” emphasizing the island’s right to self-determination. Many Greenlanders aspire to full independence from Denmark, a goal supported by 80% of the population according to recent polls, though they remain divided on timing due to economic reliance on Danish subsidies, which account for nearly half of the public budget. The fishing industry, Greenland’s economic backbone, contributes over 95% of exports, but the island’s infrastructure—lacking roads between towns and relying on a single commercial international airport—poses significant barriers to development.
Denmark, a NATO ally, is responding with diplomatic efforts to reaffirm its commitment to Greenland. Prime Minister Frederiksen is currently on a three-day visit to the island, starting April 2, 2025, at the invitation of Greenland’s new government, aiming to strengthen ties amid Trump’s aggressive rhetoric. Relations between Copenhagen and Nuuk have historically been strained, with Greenlanders citing past mistreatment under colonial rule, but Trump’s overtures have prompted Denmark to accelerate efforts to improve its relationship with the territory. Frederiksen has repeatedly stressed that Greenland’s future should be decided by its people, not external powers, and has expressed openness to increased U.S. military and economic presence without altering territorial sovereignty.
The White House’s study has sparked widespread international outrage, with critics warning of long-term damage to U.S. alliances. Taking Greenland by force or coercion could alienate NATO partners, particularly Denmark, and signal to the world that the U.S. is no better than expansionist powers like Russia or China, according to a January 2025 analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Such a move risks undermining the goodwill America has cultivated with its allies, potentially destabilizing NATO and encouraging other nations to seek alternative partnerships. Posts on X reflect a mix of alarm and skepticism, with some users describing the proposal as a return to colonial-era tactics and others questioning the feasibility of managing Greenland’s harsh environment and resistant population.
Breaking news updates as of 11:59 AM PDT on April 2, 2025, indicate that the White House budget office is still refining its estimates, with some officials suggesting that the cost of providing services could exceed initial projections due to Greenland’s remote location and extreme weather. There are also unconfirmed reports that the administration is exploring legislative avenues to formalize the acquisition, following the introduction of bills in January 2025 by Representatives Andy Ogles and Buddy Carter. Ogles’ bill authorizes the U.S. government to acquire Greenland, while Carter’s proposes renaming it “Red, White, and Blueland,” reflecting the nationalistic fervor behind the push. However, these bills remain under review in the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and their passage is uncertain given the international backlash.
The historical context of U.S. territorial acquisitions provides a backdrop for this controversy. The U.S. has a history of purchasing land to expand its reach, including the Louisiana Purchase from France in 1803 for $15 million and Alaska from Russia in 1867 for $7.2 million. More recently, the U.S. bought the Virgin Islands from Denmark in 1917 for $25 million to secure Caribbean influence. Trump’s vision aligns with this tradition, as he references “Manifest Destiny” in his rhetoric, but the modern geopolitical landscape—marked by international law and self-determination principles—complicates such ambitions. Greenland’s potential independence, a goal reinforced by a 2008 referendum where 75.54% voted in favor, adds another layer of complexity, as an independent Greenland could choose to align with the U.S. through a free association agreement rather than full annexation.
As the White House continues its analysis, the debate over Greenland’s future intensifies. For Trump, the island represents a strategic and economic prize, but for Greenlanders and their Danish allies, it is a matter of sovereignty and identity. The outcome of this saga could redefine U.S. foreign policy, test the resilience of NATO, and shape the Arctic’s geopolitical landscape for decades to come. For now, the world watches as the U.S. weighs the costs—both financial and diplomatic—of pursuing Trump’s Arctic dream.
Sources:
- Video: https://youtu.be/d9LMv0POyXM
- Video: https://youtu.be/C8IIuubLJWw
- Video: https://youtu.be/OSwxg9dlhD4
- The Washington Post, “White House studying cost of Greenland takeover, long in Trump’s sights,” April 1, 2025
- American Action Forum, “Pricing Greenland: The Essence of the Deal,” January 16, 2025
- Center for Strategic and International Studies, “Seizing Greenland Is Worse Than a Bad Deal,” January 20, 2025
- BBC, “Why does Trump want Greenland and what do its people think?” March 23, 2025
- Reuters, “Greenland: why does Trump want US control of Arctic island?” March 27, 2025
