In the summer of 2019, President Donald J. Trump floated an idea so bizarre it immediately became global news: the United States should purchase Greenland from Denmark. According to multiple accounts, Trump raised the possibility in meetings with top aides and even directed the White House Counsel’s office to explore the idea more formally1.

The concept, though shocking to the public, was not without historical precedent. The United States had purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867 and attempted to buy Greenland once before in 19462. Trump, however, approached the matter less like a diplomat and more like a real estate mogul surveying a particularly chilly investment opportunity.

The Proposal

Initially, reports suggested that Trump viewed Greenland’s strategic location and untapped natural resources as critical assets. In private conversations, he emphasized the island’s abundance of rare earth minerals and its potential for expanded military presence amid growing competition with China and Russia in the Arctic3.

Some White House aides reportedly humored the idea, believing Trump’s interest would wane. Others scrambled to understand whether such a transaction was even theoretically possible under international law. Greenland, after all, is an autonomous territory under Danish sovereignty, with its own government and people who had no expressed desire to become American citizens4.

Denmark’s Response: A Diplomatic Eye Roll

Denmark’s reaction was swift, blunt, and tinged with humor. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called the proposal “absurd,” emphasizing that “Greenland is not for sale”5. Former Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen quipped that it must be “an April Fool’s Day joke,” though it was August6.

Greenland’s own government issued a statement affirming that it was “open for business, not for sale”7. The entire episode was widely regarded within Denmark—and across much of Europe—as both bizarre and unserious.

The Fallout

Rather than shrugging off Denmark’s laughter, Trump responded with characteristic indignation. He abruptly canceled a planned state visit to Copenhagen, citing Frederiksen’s dismissive tone as the reason. “You don’t talk to the United States that way,” he said8.

Diplomatic experts were stunned. Ties between the U.S. and Denmark had been long-standing and friendly, with Denmark contributing troops to NATO missions and maintaining a close alliance. Trump’s petulant response to being laughed at over Greenland strained that relationship for months9.

In the American media, reactions ranged from amusement to alarm. Critics saw the Greenland fiasco as another example of Trump’s unpredictable and self-centered approach to international relations. Even some of his Republican allies found it difficult to defend the episode.

The Logic Behind the Lunacy

Despite the mockery, there were serious geopolitical considerations underpinning the idea—though they were poorly articulated by Trump himself. The Arctic is rapidly becoming a theater for international competition due to climate change opening new shipping routes and resource extraction opportunities10.

The United States, which maintains a key air base at Thule in northern Greenland, has strategic interests in maintaining influence there. China had previously expressed interest in financing Greenlandic infrastructure projects, which worried U.S. defense officials11.

Had the proposal been handled through normal diplomatic channels, it might have opened a more serious conversation about deeper American engagement in the Arctic region. Instead, Trump’s improvisational style ensured the idea would be remembered as a punchline, not a policy.

A Deal That Never Had a Chance

In retrospect, it is clear the deal was never going to happen. Greenlanders are proud of their autonomy and are moving steadily toward greater independence from Denmark, not toward annexation by another foreign power. Danish leaders, too, saw the proposal as both a personal insult and a fundamental misunderstanding of their political relationship with Greenland12.

Moreover, Trump’s perception of Greenland as a “real estate deal” rather than a complex, inhabited political entity illustrated a deeper ignorance about sovereignty and self-determination principles in international law13.

Conclusion: A Symbol of #Chaos

Trump’s Greenland gambit encapsulates the broader chaos that often characterized his first term. It was a moment where impulse substituted for planning, where spectacle trumped substance, and where personal pique derailed diplomatic norms.

Though the incident faded from the headlines relatively quickly, it left a lasting impression of a presidency often governed by whim rather than strategy. It was, in short, a deal that died with a shrug—and a lot of laughter.

#Chaos

Footnotes

  1. Baker, P., & Kirkpatrick, D. D. (2019, August 15). Trump Eyes a New Real-Estate Purchase: Greenland. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/15/world/americas/trump-greenland.html ↩
  2. Engel, R. (2019, August 16). The U.S. once tried to buy Greenland. Here’s why. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-once-tried-buy-greenland-here-s-why-n1042846 ↩
  3. Herszenhorn, D. M. (2019, August 16). Trump wants to buy Greenland. The Danes say it’s not for sale. Politico. https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/16/trump-greenland-denmark-1466405 ↩
  4. Beech, H. (2019, August 16). Greenland Is Not for Sale. It’s Still Not for Sale. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/16/world/europe/greenland-trump-denmark.html ↩
  5. BBC News. (2019, August 18). Greenland not for sale, Denmark tells Trump. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49367792 ↩
  6. Specia, M. (2019, August 16). Trump Wants Greenland. Denmark Says ‘No Way.’ The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/16/world/europe/trump-greenland-denmark.html ↩
  7. Greenlandic Government. (2019, August 16). Statement on Greenland’s Status. Government of Greenland. https://naalakkersuisut.gl/en/Naalakkersuisut/News/2019/08/160819-greenland-not-for-sale ↩
  8. Shear, M. D. (2019, August 20). Trump Cancels Trip to Denmark After Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen Rebuffs Greenland Offer. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/20/world/europe/trump-greenland-denmark.html ↩
  9. Wong, E., & Shear, M. D. (2019, August 21). After Greenland Flap, Trump Again Targets NATO. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/world/europe/trump-nato-greenland.html ↩
  10. Conley, H. A. (2019). America’s Arctic Moment: Great Power Competition in the Arctic to 2050. Center for Strategic and International Studies. https://www.csis.org/analysis/americas-arctic-moment ↩
  11. Pomeroy, R. (2019, August 22). Why Greenland Is So Important to the U.S. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-greenland-trump-explainer-idUSKCN1VC1VN ↩
  12. Simonsen, K. (2019, August 19). Why Greenlanders Shrugged at Trump’s Offer. Atlantic Council. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/why-greenlanders-shrugged-at-trumps-offer/ ↩
  13. Cassese, A. (2005). International Law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ↩