When President Trump in 2020 first raised the idea of acquiring Greenland, he was met with universal derision.
The Danish prime minister dismissed the notion as “absurd,” while a former Danish leader called it an “April Fool’s Day joke.” The establishment media treated it as a punch line.
Once again, the critics were wrong, and their narrow-minded thinking has been revealed.
Trump’s Greenland concept was never absurd — it was strategic.
On the grand chessboard of global power, geography is destiny. The Arctic, once a frozen afterthought, is now the front line of strategic competition and cooperation.
At its heart lies Greenland — the world’s largest island, with immense untapped potential and irreplaceable geopolitical significance.
But for Greenland to achieve its dream of independence, it must secure its economy and defenses. The United States can help.
I have worked closely with Greenland’s business and government leaders for years to develop strategic investments there, even as the Biden administration, unsurprisingly, ignored and underestimated its vast opportunity.
Beneath its ice and rock lies a treasure trove of rare earth elements essential for AI, advanced weaponry and modern technology.
As ice recedes, new maritime routes are emerging, reshaping global trade and security.
Moreover, Greenland, an epicenter of great-power competition and human and natural potential, offers a strategic partnership waiting to be forged.
Since the 2009 Self-Government Act, Greenland has exercised increasing autonomy from Denmark’s century-old sovereignty, including the ability to lease land without Danish approval.
A referendum on full independence could happen at any time, so the United States has a narrow window to strengthen ties before other powers move in.
By all available evidence, the Trump administration can successfully negotiate a deal with the Greenlandic government to bolster both our economic and national security and theirs.
Multiple viable paths can advance this vision — each securing America’s interests while honoring the aspirations of the Greenlandic Inuit people.
One option is to fully activate the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement, which granted the US exclusive jurisdiction over defense installations and personnel in Greenland under NATO. In exchange, the United States committed to Greenland’s protection during the Cold War — given Denmark’s limited capacity to do so — and delivered on that imperative.
This agreement allows the US to negotiate long-term leases for key areas, including sites rich in rare-earth deposits, deep-water ports or suited for military bases.
Expanding such leases, like the one now in effect for the US-operated Pituffik Space Base, could drive immediate economic growth through infrastructure investment and job creation. Over time, as trust deepens, this framework could ultimately bring Greenland into sovereign alignment with America.
Another option is a Compact of Free Association (or COFA), modeled after US agreements with the Pacific island nations of Palau, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands.
A COFA with Greenland would preserve its self-governance while providing US defense guarantees, economic aid, expanded trade and other benefits. It would strengthen Greenland’s autonomy while securing America’s strategic foothold in the Arctic, anchored by Alaska.
As another option, the United States could form a new trilateral agreement with Greenland and Denmark to formalize Arctic cooperation.
That would allow Denmark, too, to benefit, collaborating with the United States on vital energy and rare-earth processing projects and enhancing regional stability.
For Greenland, a deeper partnership with the United States promises transformative benefits.
American investment could diversify its economy, create jobs and modernize infrastructure, raising living standards across the island.
Education and technology exchanges would let Greenlanders shape their own future — one rooted in both independence and prosperity.
Crucially, a strong alliance with the United States would safeguard Greenland’s sovereignty, shielding it from undue influence by China and other foreign powers.
For the United States, the stakes are equally high.
A stronger US presence in Greenland would counter adversarial militarization of the Arctic, block economic encroachment by competitors and secure control over vital rare-earth resources — reducing American dependence on vulnerable supply chains now dominated by China.
Militarily, Greenland is a perfect twin to Alaska. Their locations on either side of the continent join into a strategic linchpin, offering forward bases essential for Arctic, North Atlantic and North Pacific security.
When President Harry Truman proposed purchasing Greenland in 1946, the idea was dismissed as unrealistic. Today the stakes are even higher, and the opportunity even greater.
To know Greenland is to understand that it is not just another strategic asset: It is America’s next frontier.
By acting now with vision and resolve, Trump can secure America’s leadership in the Arctic for generations to come — while helping Greenland achieve its aspirations as a partner, an ally and perhaps, one day, part of the American family.
Ronald S. Lauder is president of the World Jewish Congress and former US Ambassador to Austria.
