Securing Fortress America: Why Greenland Is Non-Negotiable

In an era of escalating great-power competition, the United States cannot afford to ignore the possibility of major world powers gaining a foothold in the Western Hemisphere. Maintaining “Fortress America,” the concept of the U.S. being protected from all foreign threats by oceans and maritime dominance, must be maintained. President Donald Trump's insistence on acquiring Greenland aligns perfectly with this priority.

The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans have always provided a natural barrier against easy invasion from Europe and Asia, and the Monroe Doctrine means to keep America’s foes out of the Western Hemisphere. Critically, Greenland is part of North America.

The vast Arctic territory, currently under Danish sovereignty, is not a whimsical real estate venture but a vital bulwark against Russian and Chinese aggression. From a national security standpoint, owning it would enable the U.S. to fortify its defenses, protecting not just our own shores but potentially those of our friends from emerging threats in a rapidly thawing Arctic.

Trump’s recent announcement of a framework for a future deal with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte hopefully paves the way for unlimited American militarization and resource development on the island. The U.S. should use all necessary diplomatic and, if necessary, military means at its disposal to force Denmark to accept U.S. control, if not full sovereignty, over Greenland.

Why Owning It Is Necessary

Greenland's geopolitical value is undeniable. Spanning 836,000 square miles, it offers magnificent military and industrial potential.

The U.S. already operates the Pituffik Space Base in Greenland, which provides missile warning and space observation. Full control would allow unlimited militarization of the island and guarantee naval protection from the north for the U.S. mainland and America’s friends.

U.S. control would also permit the development of Greenland’s rich natural resources. The island contains some of the largest deposits of rare earth minerals in the world. These minerals are necessary for things like electric vehicle motors, batteries, medical imaging, lasers, cell phones, and advanced defense systems. Currently, China controls most rare earth mining and processing. Owning Greenland would allow the U.S. to fully decouple from China on these essential products, ensuring that country cannot disrupt our supply chain.

China has invested in "Polar Silk Road" initiatives, seeking to embed its influence through economic deals that could turn into strategic footholds. As NATO has pushed Russia closer to China, that country has militarized the Arctic with new bases, nuclear-powered icebreakers, and hypersonic missile tests and aims to dominate shipping routes like the Northern Sea Route.

Without Greenland, the U.S. risks ceding the Arctic to these adversaries, exposing our northern flank to incursions that could threaten North American airspace and undersea cables vital for global communications.

Trump's vision recognizes that in the face of strengthening adversaries, America must prioritize assets that project power and prevent crises before they escalate to our doorstep.

Denmark insists that U.S. ownership is unnecessary since a simple negotiation would allow unlimited American military expansion. When asked about this, Trump correctly noted, “You defend ownership. You don’t defend leases.”

This is something other NATO members need to understand—something Trump has tried to make plain to them—Americans, particularly his political base, do not see NATO as necessary to America’s defense. There is no guarantee America would spill one drop of its blood to defend one square foot of non-U.S. NATO territory if a NATO country were attacked.

How to Get It

The U.S. can buy Greenland with Denmark’s consent, like it did with the Louisiana Purchase from France. It can force Denmark to sell it, as it forced Mexico to sell the Southwest below market rate after the Mexican American War. Or it can take it without compensation, as it did when it took Puerto Rico and Cuba after the Spanish American War.

The Danes didn’t even settle Greenland enough to make Danish the island’s official language. It seems unlikely they would fight even as long as the Spanish did for Cuba and Puerto Rico for it. With European nations rushing troops to Greenland, however, they appear willing to back Denmark against U.S. invasion. Avoiding a bloody conflict between nominal allies is optimal.

To do this, Trump turned to his favorite tool to force foreign compliance—tariffs. He promised 10 percent tariffs on Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Finland starting on Feb. 1, with the promise to raise them to 25 percent on June 1 if these countries remain stubborn.

In this situation, using tariffs is probably not the best choice to enforce compliance.

First, the UK was one of the first countries to respond to Trump’s Liberation Day last year, which applied tariffs to nearly every country to force them to the trade negotiating table. This resulted in the US-UK Economic Prosperity Deal. The European Union, which includes the other countries except Norway, shelved its deal with Trump over his Greenland demands.

Secondly, tariffs are unlikely to convince these countries to budge on Greenland. They are all liberal, globalist-run, and self-righteously convinced they ushered in a post-colonial world by defeating Nazi and Soviet imperialism. That they could not have done so without America's help doesn't register with them. Self-sacrifice for the globalist utopia is what they do. That’s why they’ve been happy for four years to pay more for electricity and weapons to punish Russia for being mean to its neighbor.

Finally, massively hiking tariffs on Europe is not a wise economic move. This signals instability and recklessness to American job creators and European businesses formerly enticed to invest in the U.S. Trump needs job growth if he wants to maintain political power in Congress.

Instead, Trump should leverage U.S. obligations to NATO. If a fellow NATO member is attacked, the U.S. should not respond unless the president feels American national security is directly threatened. Additionally, he should promise to start closing American bases in Europe and removing missile defense systems within six months if Denmark continues to refuse to sell. Europe does not have time to replace the defense America offers and will submit to these terms.

Trump repeatedly reminded Europe of America’s defense of that continent in his speech on Jan. 21 at the World Economic Forum. The details of his negotiations with Rutte and the framework they agreed to are still not fully known, but it’s likely he did use this as leverage.

Scholars and former U.S. officials estimate the market price for Greenland is $700 billion. This is a bargain for the U.S., considering the future strategic and economic benefits we will gain. It is also a bargain for Denmark, considering its entire GDP is less than $450 billion.

Critics complain that demanding Greenland is raw imperialism and a stab in the back of an ally. But we are headed for a multipolar world. Cold War relics like NATO are becoming obsolete, and friendships and alliances are fluid based on common interests. With China’s rise and Russia’s resurgence, America doesn’t have time to worry about hurt feelings across the pond. European empires committed suicide in the last century’s world wars. They don’t have the military or moral right to say no to U.S. territorial demands in America’s hemisphere, especially when NATO exists at America’s pleasure.

(READ MORE: How to Neutralize the Democrats’ 2026 Arguments)