The Logic Behind Trump’s Push for U.S. Control of Greenland

Listen to the episode: HERE

This week on The Patriot Perspective, the conversation turned to one of the most ridiculed foreign-policy ideas of the Trump presidency: the proposal that the United States pursue control over Greenland. 

For months, Democrats have treated the idea as evidence of recklessness rather than strategy. But stripped of mockery and examined on its merits, Trump’s interest in Greenland reflects a clear-eyed assessment of American security needs in a rapidly changing Arctic.

The United States has been strategically involved in Greenland for more than a century. In 1916, Washington formally recognized Danish sovereignty over the island as part of a broader North Atlantic security arrangement. 

That understanding deepened after World War II, when the United States assumed primary responsibility for Greenland’s defense through a bilateral agreement that still governs American military access today. 

U.S. radar systems, airfields, and early-warning installations have operated on the island for decades. Trump did not invent U.S. interest in Greenland—he recognized that its importance has outgrown the assumptions underlying those earlier agreements.

The Arctic is no longer a frozen buffer zone. It is warming far faster than the rest of the planet, opening shipping routes, exposing untapped resources, and turning geography into strategic leverage. 

Russia has responded aggressively, reopening Soviet-era bases, expanding its Northern Fleet, and increasing submarine activity near North American approaches. China, despite lacking Arctic territory, has pursued research stations, infrastructure projects, and mining interests throughout the region, often through state-linked entities with clear dual-use potential.

Greenland sits at the center of this transformation. Its location makes it indispensable for missile detection, space surveillance, and monitoring Russian submarines as they transit into the Atlantic. 

Early-warning systems based in Greenland provide critical detection time that no continental installation can replace. Those minutes matter. They directly affect whether the United States can respond to a launch before American cities are put at risk.

Supporters of the status quo argue that existing treaties already provide sufficient protection. As discussed on The Patriot Perspective, access alone does not equal security. Denmark has repeatedly struggled to prevent Chinese-linked companies from seeking roles in Greenland’s ports, telecommunications networks, and mining sector. 

In the Arctic, infrastructure is never merely commercial. Ports enable naval access. Research facilities gather intelligence. Communications networks shape surveillance capabilities for decades.

The economic stakes are equally serious. Greenland holds substantial rare-earth deposits essential to missile guidance systems, radar technology, and advanced electronics. China already dominates global rare-earth processing. 

Allowing Beijing even limited influence over Greenland’s supply chain would deepen an existing American vulnerability at a moment when strategic independence is becoming more urgent, not less.

Trump’s Greenland proposal was not impulsive. It was rooted in the recognition that the United States already bears responsibility for Greenland’s defense while lacking sufficient authority to shape its long-term strategic environment. 

Greenland already plays a central role in American security. The remaining question is whether U.S. policy will acknowledge that reality—or continue relying on arrangements designed for a world that no longer exists.

This week, The Patriot Perspective also interviewed Dr. Norman Fried, a psychologist specializing in trauma and recovery. Watch as he explains the roots of ICE Derangement Syndrome. Listen to the episode: HERE