How to Solve the Greenland Issue

“President Trump approaches diplomacy and engages in a very transactional manner, with economics as the foundation and driving force behind international affairs.”
- Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, President Trump’s former special envoy to Ukraine and Russia

“Money was never a big motivation for me, except as a way to keep score. The real excitement is playing the game.”
- Donald J. Trump, Trump: The Art of the Deal

It’s obvious that President Donald Trump thrives on transactions. He authored a ghostwritten book (Tony Schwartz) about it, “The Art of the Deal.” I’ve heard stories from former U.S. senators and one former presidential GOP challenger about the way Trump views “moral” issues like abortion through a purely transactional lens. The Seattle Times once called Trump’s transactional approach “soulless.”

The most recent example is his reportedly advising House Republicans to be flexible on abortion policy when it comes to health insurance reform.

“Now, you have to be a little flexible on Hyde,” Trump said in reference to the Hyde Amendment, the provision that prevents federal funds from being used on abortion services.

“You know that you got to be a little flexible. You got to work something. You got to use ingenuity. You got to work,” Trump said in a speech to House Republicans at a policy retreat at the Kennedy Center.

- President Donald Trump, as reported by The Hill

Trump wasn’t just referring to emerging health insurance reform legislation that he and Republicans in Congress are coalescing around. It also includes the thorny political issue of expired Obamacare subsidies for up to 20 million middle- and upper-middle-class Americans, mostly self-employed or small-business owners who don’t have access to or provide health insurance.

“Being flexible” on the moral issue of abortion isn’t something either “pro-choice” or “pro-life” supporters are very good at. Virginia Democrats, in one of their first acts last week, passed four constitutional amendments, one of which enshrines access to abortion up until, if not through, birth. A doctor will have to sign off on any abortion after 26 weeks (in the third trimester), but that’s just a minor inconvenience for Planned Parenthood. (More about those lovely amendments in a future post.)

Most passed on party-line votes. And wait until you learn about some of the legislation that Virginia Democrats, who have a “trifecta” lock on power in Richmond, have introduced and which stand a good chance of enactment, from tax increases to a bill PROHIBITING machine-readable ballots from being counted by hand.

Now, why would Virginia Democrats be so interested in protecting - outlawing - machine-readable ballots from being hand-counted? Perhaps this book has the answer. Looks like a threat to democracy to me. That, and they want to expand sales taxes and the hated personal property “car tax” to include electric lawn and landscaping equipment. I kid you not.

Former Governor Ralph Northam (D-VA), a pediatric neurosurgeon, famously outlined the “pro-choice” view about ensuring abortion “survivors” meet their fate. Not much flexibility here, other than how you might keep a newborn infant “comfortable” while “adults” decide whether to fulfill the objective of the botched abortion.

Find me any Democrats in Congress who disagree with the former governor, not by their words, but by their deeds. But Trump is urging pro-life Republicans to cave on the issue. “Art of the Deal,” you know. It also doesn’t help that constitutional amendments have passed in several “red” states that enshrined practically unlimited abortion access, including Ohio. For the record, any limit on abortion after viability except to protect the “life and health” of women is a loophole big enough to fly a Space Shuttle through.

So, in that sense, Trump is soulless.

Now, let’s discuss Greenland.

Trump’s opening gambit is classic for him but not unprecedented. He wants to “buy” Greenland, an 830,000-square-mile island with a 27,000-mile coastline, 56,000 residents (mostly native Inuit), and one very important US military installation (Thule, now called Pituffik Space Base, which serves as an early-warning missile-detection center and probably more). It’s more than three times the size of Texas. Up to 85 percent of Greenland is a big sheet of ice, but it’s also a reservoir of “rare earth” mineral deposits. Norway, then Denmark-Norway (they were once combined and began colonizing and claiming Greenland in the 16th century. Under the Treaty of Keil, when Norway and Denmark split, Greenland became a Danish territory, with a population of 6 million (Denmark, that is).

Denmark’s military is smaller than New York City’s police department. They also include the much smaller, but strategically located, Faroe Islands, a territory between Iceland and Europe with a population of 50,000.

Several presidents, starting with Andrew Jackson in 1832, have sought to purchase or claim Greenland. So did Andrew Johnson, during whose administration Secretary of State William Seward purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867 (“Seward’s folly”). Seward also wanted to annex both Greenland and Iceland when he bought Alaska. It’s helpful to remember that 40 percent of the current United States was acquired through purchase, including Thomas Jefferson’s constitutionally dubious Louisiana Purchase from France, the purchase of the Virgin Islands from Denmark, and the Gadsden Purchase from Mexico.

As the Cold War with the Soviet Union commenced after World War II, President Harry Truman wanted to buy Greenland. He established Thule Air Base there in 1950. And his successor, Dwight Eisenhower, kept a close eye on the massive island. Tiny Denmark, with a population smaller than Indiana's, has for its part been highly accommodating to the United States. At least until now.

Europe responded to Trump’s latest bombast with its classic and reflexive pearl clutching. They proclaimed horror at the idea of Trump trying to buy and then threatening military action (he didn’t, really; he just never took the option off the table). They promised to send symbolic troops — platoons, actually — to Greenland (they’re probably not there yet) to show a commitment to “protect” Greenland from Trump and other foreign threats. Reflexively, the Danes and others also demanded meetings with Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

Trump floated a trial balloon offering payments of $10,000 to $100,000 per resident or adult in Greenland. More European pearl clutching ensued. If Trump offered that to Cubans, it might finally result in a free Cuba (although Cuba has more than 10 million people, way larger than Denmark).

Meanwhile, China, which does not border the Arctic (Russia is in the way, though China isn’t letting that stop them), published a 2018 white paper outlining its Arctic strategy, including a “Polar” Belt and Road Initiative. It doesn’t specifically mention Greenland, but it emphasizes access to fishing. Some believe that China’s massive overfishing in global waters extends to Greenland’s waters as well. Fishing is Greenland’s largest private industry.

Greenland came very close during the first Trump Administration to signing a contract with Communist Chinese enterprises to expand two airports. Alarmed, the Trump administration pressured Denmark to step in. They did, and now Denmark has funded the airport expansions. As anyone who pays attention to China knows, when they build airports, ports, and other infrastructure, it comes with very favorable financial terms that are often unattainable, resulting in Chinese takeovers (see: Sri Lanka) and a military presence. Chinese companies already have an interest in several mining operations in Greenland and own and operate icebreakers in the region.

In recent years, Denmark has granted increased autonomy to Greenland, including instituting “home rule.” That resulted in Greenland almost contracting with Chinese construction companies to build the two airports mentioned previously 7 years ago. Oops.

So, is there a deal to be had between the US and Denmark (and Greenland)? In short, yes, but it will come in steps, with lots of ifs and buts. It will almost certainly require a treaty and possibly other agreements that will require Senate ratification and a two-thirds vote (that will be interesting, since Democrats are inclined to oppose anything Trump negotiates...because). Trump may try to negotiate a “memorandum” rather than a treaty to avoid a Senate vote, as others have before him (see: the 1993 Budapest Memorandum), but that’s hard to imagine given what “protectorate” status would require (a major US military commitment).

First, it recognizes that neither NATO nor Denmark is in any position to protect Greenland, despite protestations to the contrary. It also establishes that the threat to Greenland from China, and possibly Russia, which sends its nuclear submarines on errands up and down the coast, is real.

Second, Denmark allows Greenland to become independent, a course it was already on. Denmark has already said that it would respect the results of a referendum granting independence to the Big Ice Rock.

Third, perhaps as part of a referendum, the United States negotiates a treaty with Greenland to make it a “protectorate.” Greenland would retain its independence, but the United States would basically provide the Island’s national defense and have a role in its foreign policy. Perhaps Greenland could become a part of NATO as a result. The US would enforce Greenland's territorial waters and help protect its significant fishing industry, especially against Chinese vessels.

Does the United States have any protectorates now? No, but at various times, it has. Don’t confuse 14 US “territories,” where residents are US citizens and pay taxes (see: Guam, the US Virgin Islands, the Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, etc.), versus protectorates, which my Freespoke search engine AI defines it this way:

“The concept of a protectorate involves an autonomous territory protected diplomatically or militarily by a stronger state, while retaining formal sovereignty and managing its internal affairs.”

In the past, countries like the Philippines and Puerto Rico started off as protectorates. Cuba, Haiti, and the Dominican Republic, too. But all besides Puerto Rico were granted independence, while PR became a territory with a non-voting delegate in the US House of Representatives, as have Guam, the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa.

Some may suggest that Canada should “take over” Greenland, given its proximity as a neighbor and Arctic nation. But that’s laughable. Canada’s Navy has a whopping 40 vessels to patrol the world’s longest shoreline (about 150,000 miles), including 12 Halifax-class frigates and four diesel-powered submarines. And as of late 2025, it was reported that 54 percent of the navy’s frigates, submarines, arctic and offshore patrol ships, and maritime coastal defense vessels were considered “unserviceable,” and personnel problems remained “dire.”

Canada’s Royal Air Force consists mostly of 70-80 CF-18s, many of them purchased used from Australia. Upgrading to “Gen 5” F-35s remains controversial because, well, Trump (they’ve “promised” to purchase 80, but have only funded and received 16 thus far). In retaliation, Prime Minister Mark Carney, who just signed a huge “strategic cooperation” deal with Communist China, is leaning towards buying Sweden’s Gen 4 Gripen fighter, which no other NATO nation uses except Hungary and the Czech Republic (and, of course, Sweden, since 2024 when they finally joined NATO). With all due respect to Sweden, Canada should stick with the F-35. It’s a no-brainer. By comparison, the US has upwards of 3,400 fighter/interceptor aircraft across the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force — including F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, and F-35.

Canada’s Navy consists of, at best, 8,400 sailors. The USS Gerald Ford alone, America’s largest aircraft carrier, has upwards of 4,500 sailors. And we have 11 active nuclear-powered aircraft carriers. Canada? Zero.

At least Canada is finally stepping up to its commitment to invest at least 2% of its Gross Domestic Product in national defense. For years, Canada has ranked last among NATO members in military spending, relying instead on the USA and NORAD (the North American Aerospace Defense Command, which they share with the US).

The US Coast Guard escorts one of Canada’s four Victoria-class diesel submarines. The US has about 70 submarines, nuclear and diesel powered.

Would Trump settle for granting Greenland protectorate status? I think so. And it would be a win-win. The US would win full responsibility for Greenland’s defense. Greenland would be free and independent, with protection from the United States and, by extension, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). US investment in Greenland would grow, especially in rare earth minerals. And China and Russia would be kept at bay. No “Polar Belt and Road Initiative” here. It would also free Denmark from a responsibility it really isn’t equipped to handle, at least with respect to Chinese and Russian incursions. It took Trump to prevent them from allowing Chinese control of at least two Greenland airports, while Denmark was asleep at the switch.

Denmark’s military is minuscule. It has 20 commissioned ships, 43 F-35s, and up to 21,000 active duty military personnel. The US? We have nearly 1.4 million active duty personnel. Denmark’s military is smaller but arguably better equipped (at least in the air) than Canada’s, despite being six times smaller in population.

Denmark only has 150 military personnel permanently assigned to Greenland. Each one probably has a white flag to wave in case someone invades.

Understanding Trump isn’t that hard, really, and it starts with reading his book.

"The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It's an innocent form of exaggeration, and a very effective form of promotion."

Donald Trump, Trump: Art of the Deal

Trump also said in his book that “Sometimes, part of making a deal is denigrating your competition." Have any European leaders read the book? I doubt it.

“Buying Greenland” might be bravado, but “protectorate” status meets most of America’s strategic imperatives. Let’s hope this is what he has in mind. It would be a win-win, unlike making Canada the 51st state, which remains a really bad idea, and fortunately, a non-starter.

“MY STYLE of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I’m after.” ― Donald Trump, Trump: The Art of the Deal