How Greenland Came into Trump’s Cross Hairs and Why He So Loves Imperialism

The icy expanse of Greenland is one of the remotest—and some would say—least relevant, places on Earth. That is, until just recently when thanks to Trump’s saber-rattling rhetoric, it has emerged as an unexpected focal point in global geopolitics and its many natural gifts have been “discovered”. Trump’s persistent fascination in acquiring the island is not entirely new, but Trump’s approach has brought it into the spotlight in a way that has captured the world’s attention and shaken its leaders.

It’s not just Greenland that has become the target of Trumpian neo-imperialism. Since winning a second term, Trump has embraced an aggressive “America First” agenda that includes economic coercion and territorial ambitions, an ideology and practice that we thought had died with the 19^th century when the world saw the European powers run amuck grabbing chunks of continents simply because they had the power to do so.

The 20th century, on the other hand, was a transformative period marked by numerous independence movements and the decline of imperialism. These movements reshaped the global political landscape and paved the way for a new era of self-determination and sovereignty.  India, led by figures like Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, gained independence from British rule in 1947. At the same time, on the African continent countries like Ghana (1957), Algeria (1962), and Kenya (1963) fought for, and achieved independence from European colonial powers.

In Southeast Asia, Indonesia (1945), Vietnam (1954), and Malaysia (1957) also broke free from colonial rule. The struggle for independence in Vietnam, led by Ho Chi Minh, resulted in the end of French colonial rule and set the stage for the Vietnam War, while the modern origin of the perennial wars in the Middle East was forged with countries like Iraq (1932), Lebanon (1943), and Syria (1946) gaining independence and Israel being carved out largely of the former British mandate of  “Palestine”. The struggle for autonomy was often marked by political and social upheaval but it also ushered in a new ideology of national sovereignty. Imperialism had died—or so we thought.

Yet it seems that the 20^th century that saw the dissolution of empires and the proliferation of new nations has entirely passed Trump by. He slept through that era as new norms about a “hands off our borders” policy took root to overshadow the idea that “might makes right”. Today in the US there is talk of a resurgent doctrine of  “manifest destiny”, the mythical lynchpin of American imperialism that justified the genocide of Native Americans as European settlers forced their way across the ever-expanding country.

Trump has threatened to seize the Panama Canal and Greenland and has suggested using economic pressure to annex Canada. As absurd as it may seem, Trump has gone as far as demanding that Canada become the US’s 51^st state. The statement came amid escalating trade tensions, with Trump imposing tariffs on Canadian goods to bring the country to its knees and buckle under his demands. He argued that the US pays “hundreds of billions of dollars to subsidize Canada” and claimed that without this subsidy, Canada would not be viable as a country.   Understandably, Trump’s comments have sparked outrage from Canadian leaders, who view the suggestion as undermining their sovereignty.

As for Panama, Trump has justified his demand to take back the Panama Canal by citing several factors. First, he argues that the United States invested significant resources and lives in constructing it. He asserts that the U.S. “spent more money than ever spent on a project before and lost 38,000 lives” to build it. Then there are security concerns about China’s influence in the region. He maintains that Chinese companies, which operate ports at both ends of the canal, pose a security threat to the U.S. On the front of economic interests, he has criticized the toll system operated by the Panama Canal Authority, contending that American ships are being overcharged.

In his moves to take over Panama and Canada, and “acquire” (by what methods?)  Greenland, Trump’s language and actions resurrect the 19th-century worldview that defined European colonial powers. Analysts warn that this rhetoric could embolden America’s adversaries, such as Russia and China, by suggesting that the U.S. is now open to using force to redraw borders. Indeed, it seems that Trump has already taken a page out of the Putin playbook when he invaded Ukraine, claiming to take back territory that “belonged” to Russia.

How did Greenland end up in the cross hairs of Trump’s dynastic and imperialistic ambitions? The idea of the United States acquiring Greenland dates back over a century. In 1917, the U.S. purchased the Danish West Indies (now the U.S. Virgin Islands) from Denmark, and there were discussions about acquiring Greenland as well. However, these early attempts did not materialize, and Greenland remained under Danish control. Despite popular opinion, Greenland’s strategic importance cannot be overstated.

The island is rich in natural resources, including rare earth minerals, which are crucial for modern technology. Additionally, its location in the Arctic makes it a valuable asset for military and geopolitical purposes. The US already operates the Thule Air Station in Greenland, which is a key component of its missile defense system and if it owned the island, it could curb the presence of any other military or economic rival.

Trump’s interest in Greenland became public during his first term in office. When he proposed buying the island  it was initially met with skepticism and even ridicule. However, he persisted, emphasizing Greenland’s importance for national security and economic development. He even suggested that the U.S. might use military force to acquire the island if necessary; an idea that he is still advancing in order to threaten Denmark.

The reaction to Trump’s proposal was swift and strong. Danish officials, including Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, firmly rejected the idea, stating that Greenland was not for sale. The proposal also sparked debates within Greenland itself, with some seeing it as an opportunity for economic development, while others viewed it as a threat to their sovereignty.

While Trump’s attempts to acquire Greenland have not succeeded–yet–they have highlighted the island’s strategic importance and brought it to the forefront of international discussions. As climate change continues to open up new shipping routes and expose valuable resources in the Arctic, Greenland’s significance on the global stage can only grow.

The question is, why is Trump so intent on acquiring new territory? Taking into consideration the persona he has created (to what extent it is genuine we cannot say) ego certainly plays a central role. His determination to always be first, best, greatest, and so on, has led to the ambition of seeing his face added to Mount Rushmore. Florida Rep. Ana Paulina Luna has already introduced legislation to this effect.  “Mount Rushmore, a timeless symbol of our nation’s freedom and strength, deserves to reflect his towering legacy—a legacy further solidified by the powerful start to his second term,” Luna shared in a statement.

Washington was the founding father of the nation, the first president. The other three, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt all have one thing in common, they added new states or new territories to the country: the Louisiana purchase (1803), new states post-Civil War (1864),  and the Panama canal (opened in 1914), respectively.

These presidents were chosen for Mount Rushmore because they represent key moments in the growth and development of the United States.

What better way for Trump to secure his spot on Mount Rushmore than to add Greenland, Canada and Panama to his credit, thus Making America not only Great Again, but BIGGER.