Greenland Got Played

Why? Why now?

In 1946, just after World War II, President Harry S. Truman proposed buying Greenland from Denmark for $100 million. He even considered swapping parts of Alaska for parts of Greenland. The idea went nowhere.

Fast forward to Trump’s first term, and he floated a similar idea—calling it a “large real estate deal.” When Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen dismissed the notion as absurd, Trump retaliated by canceling a planned visit to Denmark.

Last month, Trump reignited the controversy, posting on social media that the U.S. considers "ownership and control of Greenland an absolute necessity" for national security and global freedom.

Greenland’s Prime Minister, Múte B. Egede, promptly responded, “We are not for sale and will never be for sale.” Hours later, Denmark announced an increase in defense spending in Greenland by €1.3 billion. Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen called the timing “an irony of fate,” but the response was clear.

Trump had riled up an ally.

Greenland, an autonomous Danish province with significant financial reliance on Copenhagen (receiving around €500 million annually), holds massive geopolitical importance. A former colony, it lies strategically between Europe and North America in the North Atlantic. The U.S. already maintains a key military outpost there—the Pituffik Space Base is critical for monitoring missile threats from Russia and China.

Beyond its military significance, Greenland boasts rich reserves of rare earth minerals, essential for modern technology like mobile phones, electric vehicles, and advanced weapons. Currently, China dominates global supply chains for these resources. Although Greenland banned uranium mining in 2021, its untapped reserves remain a point of interest for global powers.

Some reporters note that the melting Arctic ice has opened new shipping routes, escalating competition among major powers to secure influence in the region. From an American perspective, limiting Russian and Chinese presence near Greenland is a clear strategic priority. However, the most effective way to achieve this isn’t by alienating allies but by strengthening partnerships that align with U.S. interests.

But let’s be clear: Trump’s fixation on Greenland isn’t about strategic priorities—it’s about spectacle. Leaders like Vladimir Putin exploit external threats to distract from internal failures, often through war. Trump’s approach is different but equally calculated—he creates media wars. During his presidency, he often insulted world leaders, turning international diplomacy into reality TV. Every outrageous statement kept his MAGA base cheering and ensured blanket media coverage.

This Greenland stunt wasn’t about actually buying the territory or preparing for war—it was about controlling the conversation. In those two weeks, Trump shifted national attention from critical issues, like his controversial cabinet picks, to his absurd proposal. Even as Democrats and the media called him out, they played into his hand, giving him the headlines he craved.

Trump’s ability to dominate the narrative remains unparalleled. Democrats often dismiss him as an idiot, but is he? If he’s so incompetent, why is the country discussing Greenland, the Panama Canal, and Canada as a 51st state, instead of scrutinizing his dangerous nominations?

Trump’s real success lies in distraction.

While the media scrambles to cover his absurdities, his agenda—chaotic and damaging—moves forward in the background. Until Democrats learn to keep their focus, Trump will keep winning the media game, even if it’s at the cost of serious governance.

It is not the art of the deal. It is the art of the distraction.