The Greenland invasion scare is a media fabrication

Trump’s rhetoric about invading Greenland is political theatre, not a serious military threat

Interview requests

It’s hard to believe we’re still discussing the topic of U.S. President Donald Trump and Greenland, not only in terms of Trump wanting to buy the semi-autonomous territory, but also the possibility of him ordering the U.S. military to invade and seize it.

The fact that some people believe the latter scenario could actually materialize is crazy. While I’m genuinely sorry to put it in those terms, it really is. This is (yet) another example of why the president’s critics can’t figure out his ideas, motives, strategies and, most importantly, endgame.

The origins of Trump’s fascination with Greenland go back to his first presidential administration. The Wall Street Journal suggested in August 2019 that he had “varying degrees of seriousness” about purchasing the territory. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, whose country is the sovereign state of Greenland, recently described this idea as an “absurd conversation.” Greenland Premier Kim Kielsen took a more diplomatic approach, stating “Greenland is not for sale, but Greenland is open for trade and cooperation with other countries, including the USA.”

It’s not difficult to understand why Trump would want to buy Greenland. The territory is situated “between North America and the Arctic,” the BBC’s James FitzGerald noted on Jan. 18, which “makes it well placed for early warning systems in the event of missile attacks, and for monitoring vessels in the region.” It perfectly fits within his longstanding priorities of achieving greater American safety and security at home and abroad.

In fairness, the U.S. already has a small military presence in northwestern Greenland. The Pituffik Space Base, which was established as part of the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement between the U.S. and Denmark, serves that important purpose. It, along with Greenland’s expressed willingness to increase trade and cooperation, could theoretically open the door to new military facilities and arrangements. Denmark would have to provide consent to any changes or enhancements to the existing agreement. Since the U.S. and Denmark are allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, it should have been an easy discussion to have.

Trump’s status as U.S. President makes things more difficult. He’s likely been made aware of the fact that his country operated Greenland from 1940 to 1945 to prevent an attack from Nazi Germany. The territory was returned to Denmark once the Second World War was over. Declassified documents in the 1990s also revealed that the U.S. offered to purchase Greenland for US$100 million in 1946, but the Danish government turned it down.

For someone like Trump, a billionaire businessman who marches to the beat of his own political drum, he sees an opportunity to achieve what others couldn’t before him, even though the sale of territory between modern allied countries is pretty rare.

Trump has broached this topic fairly regularly since returning to the White House.

His son, Donald Trump Jr., made an unexpected private visit to Greenland in January 2025, followed by an unplanned visit by Vice President J.D. Vance to Pituffik Space Base two months later. He appointed Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry as a special envoy to Greenland in December to “lead the charge” in the U.S. acquiring Greenland for “national protection.” He recently announced that Denmark and seven other European countries (Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom) would face the prospect of a new 10 per cent tariff until “a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.”

The president has also been asked several times whether he would seize Greenland by force. He’s been noncommittal, for the most part. NBC News broached this subject again with Trump on Monday. His response? “No comment.”

Let’s all take a deep breath, ladies and gentlemen. We’re not on the verge of war or an international conflict on land and water. In spite of what the (mostly) left-leaning commentators, columnists and others have had no difficulty in suggesting ad nauseam.

Trump’s decades in the private sector taught him many important lessons. He’s been called intelligent, street-smart, bombastic, charismatic, litigious, larger-than-life and more. He transferred many of these traits and skills when he shifted to politics and mastered additional strategic and communications techniques.

Trump understands political messaging and knows what words, sentences and overall language to use to get a rise out of people. He understands the complexities of the mainstream media and how to keep the news cycle focused squarely on him. He’s pleased as punch to joust with reporters, political opponents and others in public forums and events. He floats trial balloons on a frequent basis to see if they succeed or fail.

That’s what is happening with Greenland. The president would certainly like to purchase this territory from Denmark and is going to try everything in his power to achieve this. Forcing the hands of the Danes, Greenland’s government and European nations is part of this strategy. He may believe that he can win this battle or tough it out to get a better deal, but I’m sure he privately knows that he may lose in the end. He knows full well that the media will lap up every word he says on this subject, too.

What about seizing Greenland? Don’t be ridiculous: it’s not going to happen. Most Americans are opposed to this idea, as well as plenty of Republicans. If Trump actually went through with it, he could be impeached. His political career would come to an abrupt and embarrassing end. Since he wants to leave behind a presidential legacy, there’s no way he would take such an enormous risk.

And he won’t.

Michael Taube is a political commentator, Troy Media syndicated columnist and former speechwriter for Prime Minister Stephen Harper. He holds a master’s degree in comparative politics from the London School of Economics, lending academic rigour to his political insights.