This obsession with Greenland is neither new nor uniquely Trumpian. The US has pursued the island for more than 150 years, driven by strategic and economic motives. . (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)
When Donald Trump floated the idea of purchasing Greenland in 2019, it seemed like a fleeting headline, a billionaire’s real estate quip amplified by his presidency. Yet, as he returns to the White House, Trump’s fixation on the world’s largest island has resurfaced, this time with renewed urgency.
“Ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity,” he declared recently. His son Donald Trump Jr’s visit to Greenland has intensified debates about Arctic geopolitics and US expansionism.
This obsession with Greenland is neither new nor uniquely Trumpian. The US has pursued the island for more than 150 years, driven by strategic and economic motives.
In 1868, the secretary of state William H Seward sought to purchase Greenland and Iceland for $5.5 million, envisioning them as vital outposts. While that deal faltered, interest persisted. In 1946, the US offered Denmark $100 million for Greenland, seeing it as essential for Cold War strategy. These historical attempts reflect America’s enduring interest in the Arctic.
Straddling North America and Europe, Greenland has been, since time immemorial, a cog in military operations. The US set up bases there during World War II to prevent its colonisation by the Nazis. During the Cold War, Thule Air Base in northern Greenland was one of the centrepieces of American defence against the Soviet Union, replete with early-warning systems for catching launches.
Today, as climate change reconfigures the Arctic, the strategic importance of Greenland has only increased.
Icecaps are melting to unmask hidden riches and new shipping lanes. Geological surveys indicate that Greenland could have up to 52 billion barrels of oil, besides huge stores of natural gas and a whole bouquet of rare-earth minerals. Those minerals, which go into everything from electric vehicles to basic defence systems, place Greenland right in the midst of global supply chains. At an estimated 42 million tonnes, rare-earth oxides make Greenland a rival in a field so long dominated by China.
These resources, coupled with Greenland’s proximity to Russia and China, make it a geopolitical chess piece. The Arctic is no longer a frozen frontier; it is a theatre of competition where control over resources and routes could redefine global power. China has already financed mining projects and sought influence in Greenland. Trump’s interest, though caricatured, underscores the seriousness of this geopolitical moment.
But the idea of purchasing Greenland raises uncomfortable questions about sovereignty and self-determination. The island’s 57 000 residents, most of whom are Inuit, have voiced concerns about being treated as pawns in a power struggle. Denmark, which governs it, has firmly rejected US overtures. In 2019, Danish officials dismissed Trump’s proposal as “absurd” reflecting a broader postcolonial shift in attitudes toward territorial acquisitions.
History complicates this narrative. Territorial purchases have often been cast as practical statecraft. The Louisiana Purchase of 1803 doubled the US’s size, securing its resources and enabling westward expansion. The Alaska Purchase of 1867, ridiculed then as “Seward’s Folly”, was redeemed through its gold, oil and strategic position. Even the annexation of Hawaii in 1898 testified to America’s readiness to redraw borders for advantageous position.
Greenland falls well within this tradition of purchases impelled by both military and economic considerations. But the world has grown more complex. Climate change, globalisation and shifting power dynamics now raise Greenland to a battleground on questions of resource security and environmental sustainability. Trump reducing Greenland to a real estate opportunity is a microcosm of 21st century geopolitical dilemmas.
To critics, treating Greenland like a commodity betrays the ideas of democracy and sovereignty to which the US purports to subscribe. But, for its backers, the Arctic represents an area where pragmatism needs to have the final say. Can the US afford to stand still if China and Russia expand their footholds?
Greenland is not an island; it is a mirror — a reflection of the most pressing issues of our time: power, resources, sovereignty. The more Trump proceeds with restoring his Arctic ambitions, the greater the need to look behind headlines and to get used to the deeper meaning of this glacial temptation.
For Greenland, the stakes have never been higher, and for the world, its frozen expanses could hold answers that we might very well not be able to afford to ignore any longer.
Vhahangwele Tsotetsi is a political analyst, consultant, social entrepreneur and Project YouthSA chairperson.