Trump’s fixation on Greenland tells you very little about American strategy and rather a lot about Trump himself.
From a hard strategic perspective, the United States already has what it needs. It has permanent basing, missile warning and space surveillance, and freedom of operation across the Arctic approaches. It enjoys all of this with Danish consent, NATO legitimacy, and remarkably little political friction. That arrangement has endured for decades because it is efficient, cheap, and stable.
Ownership would add almost nothing while creating a great deal of trouble. Annexation would antagonise allies, rupture cooperation with Denmark, invite legal challenge, and saddle Washington with civil governance obligations it has carefully avoided. It would turn a quietly advantageous position into a permanent diplomatic headache. This is why no serious part of the US security establishment has ever advocated it. Influence without ownership is more flexible, more defensible, and far easier to sustain.
The obvious objection is the future of the Arctic. Melting ice, shipping lanes, minerals, China. All real considerations. But they cut against Trump’s instinct, not in favour of it. As Arctic competition intensifies, legitimacy and alliance management become more important, not less. Access secured through cooperation is more durable than access imposed through dominance. The Pentagon understands this perfectly well.
Trump does not, because Trump does not think like a state. He thinks like a proprietor. To him, power is demonstrated by possession. Ownership is strength. Permission is weakness. Greenland fits neatly into that mental model: vast, sparsely populated, resource rich, strategically located. In his head it is not a society embedded in law and alliances. It is an undervalued asset waiting to be acquired.
That is not strategy. It is real estate logic misapplied to geopolitics. States tend to prefer leverage without liability. Trump prefers control with branding. Institutions value buffers, intermediaries, and deniability. Trump experiences these as constraints and slights. Where diplomats see resilience, he sees friction. Where strategists see durability, he sees a bad deal.
Now introduce the inconvenient detail Trump never mentions: law.
There is only one way a US takeover of Greenland could be lawful, democratic, and internationally defensible. Statehood. Anything else is colonial administration by another name, and it would be challenged immediately by courts, Congress, allies, and public opinion.
Statehood flips the entire power relationship. It requires consent, not coercion. It delivers equality, not subordination. Two Senators, a voting Representative, federal courts, constitutional protections. The right to regulate land use, to block extraction, to sue the federal government, and to say “no” to Presidents without asking permission. Greenland stops being an object and becomes an actor.
For Greenlanders, that could be materially advantageous. Small, remote US states are not left to fend for themselves. They are subsidised, politically overweight, and deeply protected by federal law. Alaska is the obvious comparator. Vast distances, high costs, strategic importance, and a federal system that quietly socialises those costs across a continental tax base. Infrastructure, healthcare, education, aviation, ports. All underwritten. Add in US environmental law and Indigenous rights jurisprudence, and Greenland would gain stronger legal brakes on predatory extraction than any White House deal could ever override.
And this is where the idea becomes fatal for Donald Trump.
Statehood is the opposite of domination. It turns a trophy into a veto. It adds Senators likely hostile to climate vandalism, executive overreach, and strongman politics. It subjects everything to courts, committees, budgets, and process. Trump wants leverage and theatre. Statehood delivers lawyers and resistance.
It also destroys the illusion of inevitability. You cannot “take” a place whose people must vote first. The moment consent becomes central, the fantasy of acquisition shrinks into a referendum and a bill in Congress. Democracy is kryptonite to this kind of politics.
There is a final irony. Once a state, Greenland could not simply leave on a whim. US constitutional doctrine makes unilateral secession impossible. Independence would require Congressional consent or constitutional change. That alone would demand cast iron safeguards written into any accession terms. More law. More limits. More things Trump despises.
This is why his Greenland rhetoric is not policy so much as exposure. It shows the gap between American statecraft and Trumpian instinct. The United States does not want Greenland. It already has what matters, and it knows the difference between access and ownership. Trump wants Greenland because he cannot distinguish possession from power, influence from control, or leadership from extraction.
That confusion is not an eccentricity. It is the dividing line between statecraft and self regard. Which is why, in the real world, Washington quietly leaves Denmark in place while Trump shouts from the sidelines.
Now extrapolate that logic to Canada. 10 Canadian provinces becoming US states would permanently tilt the balance of Congress. Two Senators per province would rewire the Senate overnight. Even Canada’s most right-leaning voters sit well to the left of today’s Republican Party on healthcare, labour rights, climate policy, and the role of the state.
And here's the beauty - it would not be America absorbing Canada. It would be Canada quietly reshaping America from within. A reverse takeover by consent, law, and arithmetic. Which is why Trump’s fantasies always stop at ownership and never reach integration. The moment you let people in rather than plant a flag, control dissolves into democracy. And that, above all else, is what he is trying to avoid.
No comments:
Post a Comment