the conversation gap: what trump’s territorial ambitions actually reveal

the greenland gambit

we keep treating it like a joke. a meme. another chaotic trump moment to laugh at or dismiss. “trump wants to buy greenland” gets the same eye-roll as “inject bleach” or “nuke the hurricane” — just add it to the pile of absurdities and move on.

but we’re missing what’s actually happening. trump’s interest in acquiring greenland isn’t a random whim or a distraction. it’s a window into a completely different framework for how america should operate in the world — one that a significant portion of the country finds compelling, even if they’d never articulate it the way trump does.

the real story isn’t “is trump serious about greenland?” it’s about two fundamentally incompatible visions of what american power is for, how nations should behave in the 21st century, and whether the rules-based international order is a constraint we should honor or a fiction we should abandon.

the surface story misses the point

here’s how the greenland story typically gets covered: trump floated buying greenland in 2019. denmark said no. trump canceled a state visit. everyone laughed. then in late 2024 and into 2025, he brought it up again — this time with more force, refusing to rule out military or economic coercion to acquire it.

the media treats this as evidence of trump’s ignorance (you can’t just buy sovereign territory!), or his showmanship (he’s just trolling!), or his dangerous unpredictability (he might actually try something!).

but none of these framings explain why the idea has persistence. why it keeps coming back. why it resonates with his base even when foreign policy experts unanimously dismiss it.

the reason is simple: trump and his supporters are operating from a completely different set of assumptions about how the world works and what america’s role in it should be.

the old rules vs. the new reality (as trump sees it)

the post–world war ii international order is built on certain principles: territorial sovereignty is inviolable. nations don’t simply acquire other nations’ territory through purchase or force. disputes are resolved through diplomacy and international law. alliances are built on shared values and mutual benefit, not transactional leverage.

these principles aren’t just abstract ideals — they’re the architecture that prevented world war iii, enabled unprecedented global prosperity, and made the united states the dominant power for eight decades.

trump looks at this architecture and sees something entirely different: a system that constrains america while letting others take advantage of us. rules that we follow while china, russia, and others ignore. institutions that we fund while other nations free-ride. alliances that cost us more than they benefit us.

from this perspective, greenland isn’t a joke. it’s strategic clarity.

why greenland actually matters (and why that makes it more concerning)

here’s the thing that gets lost in the mockery: greenland does matter strategically. enormously.

it sits between north america and europe, controlling arctic shipping routes that are opening due to climate change. it has massive rare earth mineral deposits that are crucial for everything from smartphones to weapons systems — minerals currently dominated by chinese supply chains. it hosts pituffik space base (formerly thule air base), critical for missile defense and arctic surveillance. as ice melts, it becomes more accessible and more contested.

china has been investing in greenland’s infrastructure. russia has been expanding arctic military presence. the arctic is becoming the next great power competition zone, and greenland is the prize.

so trump’s interest isn’t baseless. where he departs from conventional thinking is in what you do about it.

the traditional approach: strengthen the alliance with denmark. increase investment in greenland with danish cooperation. work through nato. build international coalitions to counter chinese and russian influence. respect danish sovereignty while finding mutual benefit.

trump’s approach: why are we asking permission? why are we constrained by denmark’s answer? if greenland is strategically vital to american security, and if we have the power to acquire it, why wouldn’t we?

the transactional worldview

this is where we have to understand trump’s actual framework, because it’s coherent even when it’s alarming.

in trump’s view, international relations are fundamentally transactional. nations have interests. power determines outcomes. everything else — alliances, international law, diplomatic norms — is just narrative that the strong use to constrain competition and the weak use to extract concessions.

from this lens:

sovereignty isn’t sacred, it’s conditional. denmark’s claim to greenland is a historical accident. greenland’s 57,000 people don’t have an economy that can sustain independence. if america offers enough money, or applies enough pressure, sovereignty becomes negotiable. that’s not imperialism — that’s just how the world actually works when you strip away the pretense.

alliances are deals, not values. nato isn’t a sacred bond of democratic nations. it’s a protection racket where we provide security and others should pay for it. denmark is in nato because we defend them, not because we share abstract values. if they’re not valuable partners on something we care about (greenland), why should their preferences constrain us?

rules are for suckers. international law, un resolutions, sovereignty norms — these constrain the united states while china builds artificial islands in the south china sea, russia annexes crimea, and iran proxies attack shipping. we follow rules that our competitors ignore, which makes us weak, not principled.

strength is the only currency. if we have the military, economic, and political power to acquire greenland — through purchase, pressure, or force — then the question isn’t “should we?” but “why haven’t we?” restraint isn’t virtue, it’s leaving strategic assets on the table.

this worldview is internally consistent. it’s also completely incompatible with the international order that has defined american foreign policy for 80 years.

what his base hears

when trump talks about greenland, his supporters don’t hear imperialism. they hear:

finally, someone putting america first. for decades, we’ve been told that international cooperation and alliance management is in our interest. meanwhile, manufacturing jobs disappeared, china rose, and we’re still defending wealthy european nations that won’t even meet nato spending commitments. trump sees a strategic asset and asks “why shouldn’t we have it?” that sounds like strength, not recklessness.

calling out the hypocrisy. russia took crimea. china is building bases in the south china sea. our competitors take what they want while we ask permission. trump refusing to rule out force isn’t aggression — it’s refusing to unilaterally disarm in a world where everyone else uses leverage.

rejecting elite weakness. foreign policy experts clutch their pearls about sovereignty and international law. but these are the same people who said nafta would be good for american workers, that the iraq war would be quick, that afghanistan was winnable, that engagement would moderate china. why should we listen to people who’ve been wrong about everything?

protecting american interests unapologetically. if greenland’s rare earth minerals and strategic position matter for american security and prosperity, and if china is positioning to exploit them, then securing greenland isn’t optional. it’s obvious. the fact that the establishment calls it unthinkable just proves how captured they are by frameworks that don’t serve american interests.

the two foreign policy worlds

this is the deeper divide that greenland exposes. america is split between two completely incompatible views of how we should engage with the world.

the rules-based order view:
america’s power comes from being the anchor of a system that most nations want to join. we lead through alliances, institutions, and shared norms. yes, we constrain ourselves — we don’t just take what we want — but that restraint is what makes others trust us. it’s what gives us legitimacy. it’s what made american hegemony durable.

when we violate these norms — invading iraq, supporting coups, undermining international institutions — we weaken ourselves. our strength comes from being the linchpin of a system, not from raw power projection.

from this view, attempting to acquire greenland through pressure or force would be catastrophic. it would shatter nato, destroy our credibility, push european allies toward china, and prove that we’re just another imperial power. the short-term gain of greenland would cost us the architecture that made us dominant.

the america first view:
that entire framework is a comfortable story we tell ourselves while others eat our lunch. the “rules-based order” was never about rules — it was about american power. when we had unquestioned dominance, other nations accepted our leadership. now that we’re weaker and competitors are stronger, they use “rules” to constrain us while they operate freely.

china doesn’t care about international law in the south china sea. russia doesn’t care about sovereignty in ukraine. iran doesn’t care about norms around proxy warfare. we’re the only ones still pretending rules matter, and it’s making us weak.

from this view, trying to acquire greenland isn’t violating norms — it’s recognizing reality. strategic assets go to whoever has the power and will to take them. if we’re squeamish about using our advantages, we’ll lose them. and lecturing us about “credibility” and “alliances” is just establishment hand-wringing from people who can’t admit their framework failed.

why this matters more than the headlines suggest

the greenland question isn’t really about greenland. it’s a test case for which of these worldviews controls american foreign policy.

if trump successfully pressures denmark on greenland — through tariffs, nato threats, or other leverage — it would prove his model. transactional power politics works. allies fold when pressed. international backlash is manageable. taking what you want is better than asking permission.

if he fails, or if the backlash proves costly, it validates the establishment view. norms matter. alliances constrain but also enable. legitimacy is a form of power. american interests are served by the system, not by breaking it.

but here’s what makes this moment dangerous: trump isn’t alone in his worldview anymore. this isn’t just one man’s eccentricity.

a significant portion of the american public — and the republican party — has lost faith in the rules-based order framework.