President Trump keeps saying the United States needs to “have Greenland,” but why? In this episode, listen to testimony to Congress about the idea of the United States taking ownership of Greenland, which is not being laughed out of the room.
Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links
- Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal
- Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode)
- Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com
- Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney
- Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com
- Use your bank’s online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536.
Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish
Thank you for supporting truly independent media!
Background Sources
History of US-Greenland Relations
“From forced evictions to Vance’s visit, Greenland base encapsulates history of Denmark-US relations.” Anne-Françoise Hivert. March 28, 2025. Le Monde.
“Cataclysmic cargo: The hunt for four missing nuclear bombs after a B-52 crash.” Robert Mitchell. January 21, 2018. The Washington Post.
“Mystery of lost US nuclear bomb.” Gordon Corera. November 10, 2008. BBC.
Shipping Lanes
Arctic
“Geopolitical Implications of New Arctic Shipping Lanes.” Gabriella Gricius. March 18, 2021. The Arctic Institute.
Yemen
“U.S. Strikes in Yemen Burning Through Munitions With Limited Success.” Eric Schmitt. April 4, 2025. The New York Times.
Polar Icebreakers
“Polar Security Cutter.” United States Coast Guard U.S., Department of Homeland Security.
Bollinger Shipyards
“Bollinger Closes $15M Acquisition of Halter Marine, New Name: ‘Bollinger Mississippi Shipbuilding.’” Sam LaGrone. November 14, 2022. USNI News.
“Summary: Bollinger Shipyards.” OpenSecrets.
China’s “Polar Silk Road”
“China’s Polar Silk Road: Long Game or Failed Strategy? Erdem Lamazhapov et al. November 14, 2023. The Arctic Institute.
GIUK Gap
“Geopolitics of the GIUK Gap: Past, Present, and Future.” Paulo Aguiar. January 21, 2025. Geopolitical Monitor.
The Danish Welfare State
“The Danish welfare state and why it is hard to copy.” Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark.
Audio Sources
President Trump Hosts Swearing-in Ceremony for U.S. Attorney for New Jersey
March 28, 2025
Nuuk and Cranny: Looking at the Arctic and Greenland’s Geostrategic Importance to U.S. Interests
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
February 12, 2025
Witnesses:
- Alexander Gray, Senior Fellow in National Security Affairs, American Foreign Policy Council
- Anthony Marchese, Chairman, Texas Mineral Resources
- Dr. Jennifer Mercer, Section Head for the Arctic Sciences Section at the Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation
- Dr. Rebecca Pincus, Director of Polar Institute, Wilson Center
Clips
21:30 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Greenland sits directly on the shortest flight path for intercontinental ballistic missiles traveling from Russia or the Middle East to the United States, making its positioning critical to our security. We have maintained a military presence in Greenland since World War Two, particularly at Pituffik Space Base, which serves as the northernmost US military installation and provides critical missile warning and space surveillance. The base, along with its deep water port and airfield, is an integral part of our national security infrastructure. 22:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Also key to our operational presence and influence in the Arctic is a healthy number of polar ice breakers. The US built its last heavy icebreaker nearly five decades ago. Meanwhile, China has four, and Russia has over 40 whose warships increasingly appear near Alaska, the only operational United States heavy ice breaker, the Polar Star, is 20 years beyond its service life. This is simply unacceptable. President Trump has highlighted the urgent need for a new fleet, and as Chairman, I’m committed to ending Russian and Chinese ice breaker dominance. Executing on this quickly, not waiting for years and years on piecemeal annual appropriations is vital for our national security, the economic productivity of Alaska and the Arctic and our national ship building capacity at American shipyards like Keppel FELS and Bollinger.
23:25 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Greenland sits atop vast reserves of rare earth elements, materials critical for everything from technology to national defense. These elements are vital in the production of smartphones, military equipment, medical technologies and much, much more. If the US were to gain access to Greenland’s resources, it could significantly reduce our dependence on foreign suppliers, particularly China, which currently operates a virtual monopoly on the rare earth market.
24:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson negotiated the Louisiana purchase with Napoleon, spending $15 million to purchase 828,000 square miles of land, land that ultimately became part of 14 states, many of which are represented on this committee today. From the Louisiana Purchase, we got portions of Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Minnesota, Louisiana, New Mexico, the great state of Texas, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana and Colorado. Without the Louisiana Purchase, the United States would be a very, very different place than it is today. And then in 1867, United States purchased Alaska from Russia, spending $7.2 million for what became our 49th state, and what ultimately gave this committee, Senator Dan Sullivan. And indeed, purchasing territory from Denmark is not unusual. The United States purchased the Virgin Islands from the Danish crown in 1917 to secure a strategic military position in the Caribbean, especially to protect the newly opened Panama Canal and safe time, maritime routes from Germany at war with Western powers.
26:05 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): If Greenland’s future were to include joining the United States, that would almost surely require the approval of the Greenlandic people, likely through a public referendum. This would be a mutual decision, and it is one worth discussing. For Greenlanders, there would be many benefits of becoming an American territory, including American citizenship, including billions of dollars of new American investment in Greenland that would raise the standard of living of the 50,000 Greenlanders there today. 32:55 Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA): Once we had 10 military bases on the world’s largest island. Today, only the Space Base remains. 33:00 Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA): The good news is, if we stop talking about buying Greenland and instead work quickly to re-establish US interests — there have been, I think, since 1951, many update agreements between Greenland and the United States. The one most recently, 2018 I think, during the first Trump administration. These agreements are in place that authorize dual use investments, new port infrastructure, fiber optic cable, radar and power plants.
38:45 Alexander Gray: Put simply, and as embodied in Greenland’s own foreign security and defense policy strategy that was put out last year, the ultimate goal of Nuuk is to obtain independence from Denmark. When this will happen is subject to debate, including in Greenland and Denmark itself, but for US purposes, it is vital that leaders in Washington take seriously what the Greenlanders themselves are telling us, and what the last several decades of increasing Greenlandic self governance and autonomy demonstrate members of the committee. The question facing American policy makers comes down to the following, in my view: when Greenland inevitably obtains independence from Denmark, as their leaders again tell us that they will, who is going to greet them on the other side? Will it be Russia and China with their history of predatory behavior in small developing states and their unwillingness to respect such state sovereignty? Or will it be the United States with our commitment to sovereignty, the rule of law, respect for the environment and for the rights and heritage of indigenous people? Now is the time to begin laying the groundwork for what arrangements can be put into place once Greenlandic independence is imminent.
40:20 Alexander Gray: The US actually occupied Greenland during World War Two, because it was so essential that we keep the Nazis from occupying it and being able to base U-boats from there, or potentially to launch bombers against the East Coast of the United States from Greenland. The United States has attempted to purchase Greenland at least four times, depending on how you count, starting in 1867 and as recently as 1955. Administrations of both parties – Harry Truman, Franklin, Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower – all seriously considered bringing Greenland closer to the United States because the strategic logic is so clear.
40:55 Alexander Gray: The island has 27,000 miles of coastline. At its shortest point, it’s about 1,100 miles of flying time to the United States. Over the past several decades, foreign vessels have repeatedly arrived in Greenlandic waters without proper authorization or in violation of NATO protocols. In one instance, a Russian submarine actually showed up in Greenlandic waters and was discovered by accident. Unfortunately, our friends in Copenhagen have not devoted the defense resources necessary to ensure that Greenland and the coastline and the airspace is protected the way that it should be. As during the Cold War, the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap remains an area of considerable strategic concern for the United States as an area for submarine passage going to the East Coast of the United States. And finally, the United States has significant interest in the space base at Pituffik, which obviously remains one of only two US Arctic facilities, one of only two US military bases in the Arctic at that altitude that would serve strategic space interests, and there is no redundancy if we were to lose one of them.
42:45 Alexander Gray: Finally, I would just mention a couple things on how the United States could best bring Greenland closer to the United States. We have a couple options. One, we could make Greenland a territory, an insular area. We have 14 insular areas in the United States: Guam, American, Samoa, US Virgin Islands, to name a few. That’s certainly an option. They all have various levels of self government. They have various levels depending on Congress’s intent. They have various levels of day-to-day autonomy. Alternatively, the United States could offer a Compact of Free Association to Greenland, similar to what we have with the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. This is, in my view, an excellent option whereby sovereignty by Greenland would be maintained at the same time the United States would have a defense obligation and defense access to Greenland that would ensure that our strategic interests in the island are upheld. This would grant us, also, the right to deny military access to an adversary power who sought to use Greenland for its own purposes.
45:15 Anthony Marchese: As the world’s largest island, roughly one and a half times the size of Alaska, Greenland presents a mining conundrum. On one hand, it is a treasure chest of not only critical minerals, but base metals, precious metals, and industrial minerals. A map prepared by the government of Greenland illustrates the obvious. Greenland’s entire coastline holds what is indisputably one of the world’s greatest collection of minerals in one jurisdiction. Throw a dart at any portion of the coastline, and you will undoubtedly hit a potential world class target. Conversely, the sheer topography of Greenland presents a potential or presents significant challenges. One mile thick ice in its interior, covering 85% of the country, winter temperatures averaging 16 degrees Fahrenheit and thick sea ice, which potentially create clogged shipping lanes. While geological maps of Greenland present a vast array of critical mineral deposits along its coast, the presence of such deposits is only a starting point for exploration. Critical minerals vary in value significantly. Rare earth minerals such as cerium and lanthanum, although considered critical by the US Geological Survey because they’re part of the rare earth minerals basket, are not as valuable as neodymium and presidimium, which are essential for magnets and batteries. Mineral characterization is essential in order to “separate the wheat from the chaff.” To focus on economically profitable deposits, such characterization requires significant amounts of exploratory drilling. Drilling provides answers to questions such as, what minerals do we have, what are the estimates of the quantities we have and what are the grades of the minerals we have? Drilling is expensive, and such costs in Greenland are magnified once mineral characterization costs are addressed, capital and operating costs of mining are encapsulated in a feasibility study. After receiving necessary approvals and permits, the feasibility study requires drilling data, metallurgical data, processing cost data, environmental data, and finally, the downfall of many projects, commodity prices or accommodating commodity prices. Mining in Greenland dates back into the 1950s. In fact, Greenland was at one time the world’s largest producer of cryolite, a mineral used in aluminum production. Outside of cryolite, serious mining in Greenland commenced in the 1990s. Unfortunately, there has not been significant critical mineral mining in Greenland. In 2021, the government effectively ended a promising rare earth project, because uranium would be mined as a mineral byproduct. As a result, Greenland banned uranium mining due to local, indigenous opposition. Interestingly, a study sponsored by McGill University in Canada several years ago found that over 85% of the population surveyed favored mining, with the exception of radioactive materials. Without characterization, we do not know if future mineral deposits are accompanied by uranium, thereby potentially limiting development, unless there are policy changes. An acquisition of Greenland by the United States could take many forms, I believe Alex just mentioned those. There needs to be a determination as to which regulatory authorities, if any, would govern mining projects. In the United States, the Bureau of Land Management and the US Forestry Service govern mining regulations on federal lands, while states like Alaska also give serious consideration to the desires of the indigenous population. At the present time, Greenland’s 56,000 inhabitants are predominantly Inuits, an indigenous population which has a strong voice in environmental policy, along with the governments of Greenland and Denmark. Regulatory Authorities are critical to an examination of the economic incentives for mining. Characterization of mineral deposits is time consuming and expensive, tantamount to venture capital investing. The USGS could provide government funding for such characterization to lessen the exploration risk for private industry. In this regard, it is imperative to remember that capital costs for Greenland projects are highly variable. Frigid winters create many restrictions, significant hurdles for timely project development. Lack of infrastructure such as roads, fuel, electricity and housing exacerbate capital costs. Workforce needs would require the import of foreign labor, given that skilled mining labor is minimal in Greenland. Metallurgical expertise necessary to process mineral material would present further challenges, as such, expertise is generally available, primarily in Asia. Greenland’s mining challenges would likely require the US government to provide significant financial assistance in order to attract private capital with funding needs required in both upstream and downstream development.
57:00 Dr. Rebecca Pincus: The Arctic holds significant natural resources, including minerals, hydrocarbons and fish. Emerging shipping lanes across the Arctic, including the northern sea route across Russia’s coast and the Northwest Passage, are drawing increasing interest as ice coverage declines. The Arctic is also important to the space domain, since polar and near polar orbits provide unique and valuable satellite views. 59:35 Dr. Rebecca Pincus: The Pituffik Space Base is a critical forward location to US missile defense. Greenland provides the western most location for monitoring Russia’s naval activities in the Arctic and North Atlantic.
1:00:15 Dr. Rebecca Pincus: Greenland’s enormous energy potential is often overlooked. The island has virtually unlimited hydropower around the ice sheet. Its hydro potential is very high quality, and offers the potential to co locate energy intensive industrial facilities in the Icelandic model. The cold climate in Greenland would make data centers an obvious choice, although this would require a fast fiber connection to the United States, possibly via the planned Far North Fiber project between Japan and Ireland, or through Quintillion’s planned expansion. A fiber connection to Greenland would enhance regional security through a dual use benefit to communications capabilities, and it would tie Greenland closer to the United States.
1:00:55 Dr. Rebecca Pincus: Tourism is another significant area for growth. Starting this summer, United Airlines will offer direct flights just over four hours long from Newark to Nuuk. With tourism, arrival is expected to double in the face of significant limitations on hotel availability and other support infrastructure. There is both a tremendous economic opportunity as well as need for strategic investment and development planning. 1:06:00 Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT): That’s not going to come for free. So what’s that going to cost? Alexander Gray: Well, I can tell you, sir, in the instance of Palau, Micronesia, Marshall Islands, it does cost development assistance. In Palau, we have a trust fund that we fund, that we funded for decades. You know, it is in the order of hundreds of billions of dollars. But I think, one, it solves a security dilemma that we have had for decades or centuries. And two, Mr. Marchese is much more eloquent on the natural resources side of this, but there are tremendous economic opportunities that I think can offset some of these costs if we do this strategically and thoughtfully. So I think it’s a I think there are ways to offset the cost, in short, Senator.
1:16:25 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): How would the lives of Greenlanders be better off were they to become part of America? Anthony Marchese: Senator, I mentioned in my testimony that McGill University had done a survey of the population and they were four mining. So I believe part of it is the recognition that were the United States to come in, more than likely, they would provide some form of financial assistance to allow private companies to come in and mine. And the vast majority, I think they said, about 85% of the Inuits wanted mining, with the exception of uranium – that’s a separate topic. The point is, I believe, once the Greenlanders recognize that the United States would come in and provide a lot of assistance, that mining jobs would be there, and that’s very important for the population. There just isn’t that much mining right now. And I think that if there were the prospect of financial assistance to jump start the mining industry, I think you would see more Greenlanders interested in becoming part of the United States.
1:18:40 Anthony Marchese: The first step, as I mentioned in my testimony, would be to actually provide – I believe the USGS would be the best forum, or the best agency to do this, but with the USGS assistance – undertake a massive mineral characterization in the country. Well, first of all, that in and of itself, it’s not a short term process. That’s probably a few years to do that. That, in and of itself, would provide jobs for people. Remember, there are only 56,000 people there, so you don’t need that many to be happy, to have the entire country be happy. So the USGS comes in, provides some assistance to, in essence, map the area to figure out which deposits are real, which deposits are not real. Once you do that, then you start getting into convincing companies to put money in, and that provides even more jobs. So I think even before you start putting a shovel in the ground to create a mine, you have, in my opinion, the potential for 1000s of new jobs in a mining industry. I mean, at the end of the day, Greenland, in my opinion, can become a with obviously responsible environmental oversight, can become a major international producer of all types of minerals, not to mention, as Senator Cantwell said, a potentially large hydro industry, and that in of itself, requires – forget about rare earth minerals, but as an example, the hydro industry – would require a tremendous amount of jobs, but remember, the expertise has to be developed also. So they’re potentially massive economic power, I believe, massive potential.
1:20:40 Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ): I just wanted to ask, does that mean it’s safe to assume that you don’t think the US should consider use of force or economic coercion to take control over Greenland? Alexander Gray: Sir, I don’t think the United States should use any sort of coercive behavior toward a NATO ally, meaning Denmark.1:22:45 Alexander Gray: If you go back and look at the history of the United States in the World War I period, when we were negotiating with Denmark to retain to purchase the Virgin Islands, one of the things that we did at that same period was we actually waived the Monroe Doctrine, one of the few times we’ve ever done this, and told the Danes that we had no objection to them gaining additional political control over Greenland, which wasn’t fully established at the time, as part of our larger negotiations over purchase of the Virgin Islands. So this is clearly within the framework of the Monroe Doctrine of Hemispheric Defense, of kind of traditional US Strategic conceptions of the outer perimeter of our hemisphere.
1:23:55 Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ): I guess what I’m just trying to get across here, and you know, I also had conversations with Greenlanders over the course of the last week, is everything that we’re saying here in this room, we’re all in agreement that there’s strategic value in Greenland, and we should be pushing forward on the ice breakers and so many other things that we should be doing. But I feel like we are getting in our own way by having this conversation about acquisition at a time when that’s not even needed. I mean, I’ll be honest with you, the Greenlanders I talked to were insulted that we were talking in this way about their own land as if they’re not even there, as if we can just purchase this and buy this, as if they are just an object. And that’s what they said to me, that it feels like we’re saying they are an object that we can just take because we are the richest, most powerful country in the world. So I just want to push back here, because there’s so much that we can be doing without having to own Greenland, so much more scientific partnerships, so much more that we can offer when it comes to minerals and mining, we should just be pushing forward in that regardless of what happens with a potential referendum going forward, so that if they do get to that place, we are already positioned ourselves as a strong partner. No doubt more we can do right now, but I just think that this is getting in our own way. And when you look at the polling, 85% of Greenlanders say they are opposed to become becoming part of the US. 46% view President Trump’s interest as a threat. If we are trying to solidify our relationship with them, especially in some post independence position, we are burning those bridges. We are sowing a sense of distrust right now that I think would make it even harder for us to be able to achieve that later.1:28:35 Dr. Rebecca Pincus: We are looking at a set of challenges in the GIUK gap related to Russian activity, undersea activity, that is a real problem set for us.
1:28:55 Dr. Rebecca Pincus: It would be best to talk to the Department of Defense in a classified setting about what specific capabilities and access they may need, but I will say that the 1951 defense agreement gives us very wide access to Greenland. We have never had a problem asking for access and permissions and not getting it.
1:30:55 Alexander Gray: I’m more concerned about a future political arrangement in Greenland that could be influenced or controlled adversely by an adversary power in a way that would prevent us from being able to exercise the type of control or the type of domain awareness over the gap that we have had in recent years. That’s why I think these proposals that I’ve mentioned, that others have put forward, for what is the long term political arrangement in connection with Greenland, it’s so important because we have to have the ability to maintain some sort of control and some sort of awareness over that gap. 1:36:45 Dr. Rebecca Pincus: I would echo what Mr. Gray has said about putting Greenlanders at the center of this conversation and listening to them carefully. They very clearly want independence. They’re interested in developing their minerals, but also are very concerned about environmental standards. Greenland, the Greenland government, took on the authority over natural resource decision making in the 2009 self government act. So Greenlanders fought for the right to control their natural resources, and I think it is unlikely that they would be willing to cede that control. So as we move forward with this conversation about potential acquisition, I think as Mr. Marchese mentioned, the importance of the regulatory authorities will continue to be at the center there. 1:39:55 Alexander Gray: The question for me is not between Denmark and the United States, it’s between the United States, and China and Russia. And I think that answer is even more obvious. And your colleagues had mentioned something about sovereignty. To me, this is about preserving the sovereignty of the Greenlanders from countries, from adversary nations, who have a long history of undermining just that type of sovereignty when our tradition has been to uphold and protect it.
1:40:55 Anthony Marchese: I believe that part of the problem is the way this is being – you know, hate to use the word sold – sold to the public. I don’t think we’re emphasizing enough of the benefits that the Greenlanders would get, specifically jobs. I mean people, I believe when people say 85% are against it, I think part of the perception is it’s a land grab, and we’re just going to impose our will upon them, versus trying to soften the image by saying, guys and women, we’re going to be giving you high quality jobs. Mining jobs pay significantly more than average wages across the board, so I would be trying to emphasize the economic benefits to the population, because I don’t believe that message has gotten through.
1:18:40 Anthony Marchese: The first step, as I mentioned in my testimony, would be to actually provide – I believe the USGS would be the best forum, or the best agency to do this, but with the USGS assistance – undertake a massive mineral characterization in the country. Well, first of all, that in and of itself, it’s not a short term process. That’s probably a few years to do that. That, in and of itself, would provide jobs for people. Remember, there are only 56,000 people there, so you don’t need that many to be happy, to have the entire country be happy. So the USGS comes in, provides some assistance to, in essence, map the area to figure out which deposits are real, which deposits are not real. Once you do that, then you start getting into convincing companies to put money in, and that provides even more jobs. So I think even before you start putting a shovel in the ground to create a mine, you have, in my opinion, the potential for 1000s of new jobs in a mining industry. I mean, at the end of the day, Greenland, in my opinion, can become a with obviously responsible environmental oversight, can become a major international producer of all types of minerals, not to mention, as Senator Cantwell said, a potentially large hydro industry, and that in of itself, requires – forget about rare earth minerals, but as an example, the hydro industry – would require a tremendous amount of jobs, but remember, the expertise has to be developed also. So they’re potentially massive economic power, I believe, massive potential.
Marco Rubio Senate Confirmation Hearing to be Secretary of State
January 15, 2024
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Clips
4:49:35 Marco Rubio: I think we need to understand that Greenland has been strategically important to the United States and to the West for a very long time. In fact, in 1941 at the outbreak of World War II, the United States was signed up as a protectorate, even though Denmark had been occupying. You think back, I think Harry Truman tried to buy Denmark. Harry Truman had made an effort to try to buy for $100 million he was rebuffed. And then the US has maintained, through a mutual defense agreement there, the opportunity to have military bases, and had them for a while. Why? The reason why is because of where it’s located geographically. Yes, the access to the minerals on Greenland are critically important. But as more navigable space is opening up in the Arctic, particularly this northern passage that goes from Russia to Asia, and could cut transit times by as much as 40%, the Arctic is going to become incredibly critical. And so we have to have a presence there. We have to have a presence there, not just saying, Okay, we have a base, we have 200 people, or we have a flag flying. We have to have the ability, for example, to have the ships that can navigate on the naval level and keep those shipping lanes open if, in fact, they’re being threatened. We have to have partners along the Arctic region that will join us in ensuring that the Arctic region is open for free flow of navigation as these passages open up, because global trade is in many ways going to be infused by it. We have positions within the State Department that I think in the past have been diminished, or people just haven’t paid a lot of attention to, I just had this conversation the other day with Senator Murkowski, that all of a sudden I think people are interested in serving in Arctic affairs and in Arctic posts, because this issue of Greenland has opened our eyes to the broader geographic importance of the Arctic region, which long has been a curiosity or something people have not talked about. But I think now we have the opportunity to see it for what it is, and that is, if not the most important, one of the most critical parts of the world over the next 50 to 100 years will be whether there’s going to be freedom of navigation in the Arctic and what that will mean for global trade and commerce.
