The Patriot Post® · Is Greenland 'Trump's Folly'?

In 1867, Secretary of State William Seward negotiated a deal to buy Alaska from the Russian Empire for $7.2 million — a deal derided by some at the time as “Seward’s Folly.” It was obviously in Russia’s interest, as Alaska was territory the Russians feared they couldn’t defend after losing the Crimean War to Great Britain a decade earlier. However, it’s turned out for us that Alaska was a shrewd purchase, first for gold, and later oil.

A century and a half later, we’ve come to a point where President Donald Trump covets another expansion into the Arctic. This time, however, the situation is somewhat different. While Denmark is not a world power, it’s really not interested in selling Greenland. However, as our Gregory Lyakhov noted earlier this week, there’s a strategic element to that portion of the world we can’t ignore, as it’s a crossing point for Russian submarines as well as a key outpost for missile defense.

In that respect, we’re not strangers to Greenland, which has been the home of the Pituffik Space Base (previously known as the Thule Air Base) since a 1951 agreement between the two nations. As part of that agreement, we recognize Danish sovereignty over all of Greenland.

But while we’ve always recognized Greenland for its geographic importance, President Trump’s desire to acquire Greenland has an additional strategic aspect: the prospect of governing a land potentially rich in rare earth materials coveted by the free world, materials currently controlled for the most part by China. Earlier this month, our Nate Jackson looked at how President Trump was working his art of the Greenland New Deal on the Danes, stopping just short of declaring a red line.

Our NATO allies, however, aren’t playing along as Trump would like, subjecting themselves to new additional 10% tariffs as a result of their puny show of support to the Danes. In response, the French are threatening an EU “trade bazooka” as the nations meet to discuss the situation: the EU “plans to convene an extraordinary summit with all 27 of its heads of state and government to discuss the crisis.”

Meanwhile, the media continued its own assault on the president’s idea.

“Trump’s newest warning to impose tariffs on nations opposing his bid to acquire Greenland threatens U.S. military and trade alliances built up over decades,” blared The Washington Post. That was echoed by The New York Times: “As President Trump tries to coerce European leaders over Greenland, they are pondering the unthinkable: Is an 80-year-old alliance doomed?”

Concern spans the spectrum, too, including the editors of The Wall Street Journal. “Mr. Trump is taking reckless risks with the NATO alliance that advances U.S. interests in the Arctic,” warned the editors. “If he doesn’t believe us, he can look up Norway, Sweden, and Finland in an atlas. The latter two joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization recently, and already are discovering that with Mr. Trump, no good strategic deed goes unpunished.”

Hilariously, the French (who sent a massive 15-person force to Greenland) are giving us tough talk. French President Emmanuel Macron called Trump’s tariff threats “unacceptable” and vowed, “Europeans will respond in a united and coordinated manner should they be confirmed. We will ensure that European sovereignty is upheld.”

As always, though, the media (and the Europeans) seem to be taking Trump literally but not seriously. “No one should underestimate the shock his Greenland project is producing among allies. Along with his tariffs and his tilt toward Russia against Ukraine, he is alienating Western Europe in a way that will be hard to repair,” the WSJ editors further worried. “It’s true that Europe may not be in a position to resist if Mr. Trump really wants to go to war over the island. But say goodbye to NATO.”

Some may see the prospect of NATO’s end and say, “Good riddance.” But the president is working his usual rope-a-dope on our allies across the pond (including his various crazy-sounding pronouncements, trolling with AI images, and even the whole schtick about the Nobel Peace Prize), leaving all of his options open. It’s telling that the betting markets have slowly improved the odds of America acquiring Greenland by the end of the year. While it’s still considered a long shot, there’s a chance, and people are coming around to the thought of America gaining another strategic territory. That would be the sort of “green deal” to bring prosperity to America.