Greenland Envy Takes Hold on Capitol Hill
The Senate is debating the extent to which Trump's aspirations for the Arctic should be regarded as serious or taken literally.
TroibNews 
Greenland has recently emerged as a significant topic in American politics, drawing attention comparable to its size in the Mercator projection. The prospect of annexing the Arctic island has captivated President Donald Trump, evolving into a fervent rallying point for his MAGA supporters. This push has incited outrage among Denmark, Greenland's overseers, and raised alarms among European allies. Currently, several bills in Congress focus on integrating Greenland into the United States, one of which proposes to rename the territory “Red, White and Blueland.”
The inaugural congressional hearing concerning a potential Arctic acquisition was far from dramatic. Held on a snowy Wednesday morning in a nondescript Senate hearing room, the session was titled “Nuuk and Cranny: Looking at the Arctic and Greenland’s Geostrategic Importance to U.S. Interests” and did not indulge in excessive patriotism.
Senators from both parties sought to address the core dilemma surrounding the Republican initiative for Greenland: Is the interest primarily in securing lithium resources, or is it more about political goals?
This tension was evident in the opening remarks. Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz enthusiastically highlighted historical precedents for U.S. territorial acquisitions, referencing the Louisiana Purchase. However, he also emphasized Greenland’s vital strategic resources and the urgent need for more icebreakers to maintain control over Arctic sea lanes. He described this strategic angle as the geopolitical necessity that underpins the more flamboyant, MAGA-driven rhetoric, stressing that any annexation would depend on mutual agreement with Denmark and the consent of Greenlanders in a referendum, conditions that currently seem unlikely.
In contrast, Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, the leading Democrat on the Commerce Committee, bypassed any flowery language about annexation. For her, the hearing focused solely on the practical aspects of icebreakers, minerals, and ensuring U.S. dominance in the Arctic.
Efforts to acquire Greenland have a long history dating back to the 1860s, but the recent surge in interest began in 2019 when Trump floated the concept during his first term. This was promptly followed by a New York Times op-ed from Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton advocating for the purchase. The issue faded from view as Trump's first impeachment and the Covid pandemic took precedence. However, it has regained momentum with Trump's re-election campaign and his renewed interest in gaining a northern territory. To underscore Trump's seriousness—or perhaps his lack of it—his son Donald Trump Jr. visited the Arctic last month, engaging in a photo opportunity with Greenlanders donning MAGA hats.
During the Senate hearing, the tone shifted between serious and absurd. Some Democrats prefaced their comments by mocking the notion of purchasing Greenland, only to pivot to discussions about the necessity of more icebreakers. Others seemed to fully embrace the ridiculousness of the situation; for example, Danish reporters couldn’t suppress laughter when GOP Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio posed the question to a witness: “If you were a Greenlander, would you rather be part of America, a $27 trillion economy, or part of Denmark?”
The witness, Alex Gray—a former staffer for the Trump National Security Council—declared the answer “obvious.” Later, Gray clarified that discussions of annexation were not mere “clickbait” or “distraction,” particularly when Sen. Eric Schmitt asked about criticisms from Democrats who dismissed the notion as trivial during a period of significant federal budget cuts.
The senators also heard from a mining CEO and Arctic experts from the National Science Foundation and the Wilson Center. Thus, despite Trump’s grandiose claims, the hearing was more focused on how to extract resources from Greenland than on adding another star to the American flag.
However, one viewpoint was notably absent: that of Greenland itself. The self-governing territory is moving towards independence, raising questions about whether its citizens would prefer to exchange Copenhagen for Washington.
Cruz mentioned the advantages of annexation by stating that “the people of Puerto Rico enjoy a considerable upside from their current status as an American territory.” Notably, he did not address the fact that Puerto Ricans have consistently voted since 2012 for statehood, yet Congress has yet to act on this wish.
It should be clear that no one suggested a military takeover of Nuuk. Yet, the hearing highlighted a persistent unwillingness to leave the complicated future of Greenland unexamined.
Mark B Thomas contributed to this report for TROIB News
The inaugural congressional hearing concerning a potential Arctic acquisition was far from dramatic. Held on a snowy Wednesday morning in a nondescript Senate hearing room, the session was titled “Nuuk and Cranny: Looking at the Arctic and Greenland’s Geostrategic Importance to U.S. Interests” and did not indulge in excessive patriotism.
Senators from both parties sought to address the core dilemma surrounding the Republican initiative for Greenland: Is the interest primarily in securing lithium resources, or is it more about political goals?
This tension was evident in the opening remarks. Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz enthusiastically highlighted historical precedents for U.S. territorial acquisitions, referencing the Louisiana Purchase. However, he also emphasized Greenland’s vital strategic resources and the urgent need for more icebreakers to maintain control over Arctic sea lanes. He described this strategic angle as the geopolitical necessity that underpins the more flamboyant, MAGA-driven rhetoric, stressing that any annexation would depend on mutual agreement with Denmark and the consent of Greenlanders in a referendum, conditions that currently seem unlikely.
In contrast, Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, the leading Democrat on the Commerce Committee, bypassed any flowery language about annexation. For her, the hearing focused solely on the practical aspects of icebreakers, minerals, and ensuring U.S. dominance in the Arctic.
Efforts to acquire Greenland have a long history dating back to the 1860s, but the recent surge in interest began in 2019 when Trump floated the concept during his first term. This was promptly followed by a New York Times op-ed from Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton advocating for the purchase. The issue faded from view as Trump's first impeachment and the Covid pandemic took precedence. However, it has regained momentum with Trump's re-election campaign and his renewed interest in gaining a northern territory. To underscore Trump's seriousness—or perhaps his lack of it—his son Donald Trump Jr. visited the Arctic last month, engaging in a photo opportunity with Greenlanders donning MAGA hats.
During the Senate hearing, the tone shifted between serious and absurd. Some Democrats prefaced their comments by mocking the notion of purchasing Greenland, only to pivot to discussions about the necessity of more icebreakers. Others seemed to fully embrace the ridiculousness of the situation; for example, Danish reporters couldn’t suppress laughter when GOP Sen. Bernie Moreno of Ohio posed the question to a witness: “If you were a Greenlander, would you rather be part of America, a $27 trillion economy, or part of Denmark?”
The witness, Alex Gray—a former staffer for the Trump National Security Council—declared the answer “obvious.” Later, Gray clarified that discussions of annexation were not mere “clickbait” or “distraction,” particularly when Sen. Eric Schmitt asked about criticisms from Democrats who dismissed the notion as trivial during a period of significant federal budget cuts.
The senators also heard from a mining CEO and Arctic experts from the National Science Foundation and the Wilson Center. Thus, despite Trump’s grandiose claims, the hearing was more focused on how to extract resources from Greenland than on adding another star to the American flag.
However, one viewpoint was notably absent: that of Greenland itself. The self-governing territory is moving towards independence, raising questions about whether its citizens would prefer to exchange Copenhagen for Washington.
Cruz mentioned the advantages of annexation by stating that “the people of Puerto Rico enjoy a considerable upside from their current status as an American territory.” Notably, he did not address the fact that Puerto Ricans have consistently voted since 2012 for statehood, yet Congress has yet to act on this wish.
It should be clear that no one suggested a military takeover of Nuuk. Yet, the hearing highlighted a persistent unwillingness to leave the complicated future of Greenland unexamined.
Mark B Thomas contributed to this report for TROIB News
