The Cost of Trump’s Greenland Grab

By Judson Berger

Friday, January 23, 2026

 

President Trump’s Arctic maneuvering has truly been an Iditarod of insanity, has it not?

 

As things stand, the U.S. president is touting “the framework of a future deal” with NATO on Greenland. Details are sketchy and in dispute. The proposal reportedly would respect Denmark’s sovereignty over the land, mostly, with discussions centering in part on U.S. access for military bases, possibly involving giving the U.S. a sovereign claim to “pockets” of territory. Trump aborted planned tariffs on allies in the meantime.

 

So: Was it worth it? Considering Trump probably could have exploited existing arrangements dating back to 1951 to pursue his security aims without the drama — indeed, updates to that pact are being discussed, the New York Times reports — the price looks unacceptably steep.

 

Make no mistake, that price has already been paid. Back when acquisition was theoretically on the table, the sticker price for Greenland was estimated to be as high as $700 billion. That didn’t represent the true cost. The add-on, intangible costs — to the integrity of the already-strained Atlantic Alliance, to America’s reputation as a steady and trusted partner in the West — were accumulating at a brisk pace all along. The latter is blowing away like the windswept snow off Sermitsiaq. The former is being tested, to use one of Trump’s favorite phrases, like never before.

 

Noah Rothman itemizes the bill:

 

Even if the president’s account of the framework is accurate — a dubious presumption, but one to which many will cling — the notion that the U.S. could not have secured additional basing and commercial licensing rights in Greenland absent the threat of invasion and occupation is nonsensical. His bullying incurred material costs, sacrificed American prestige, tarnished its reputation with its allies, and bore an ugly resemblance to America’s irredentist enemies abroad. Nothing that could not have been gained through more diplomatic means was secured. Much that should not have been sacrificed in this process was lost.

 

I urge you to read Jim Geraghty’s ten-point refutation of Trump’s message to the prime minister of Norway, which last weekend escalated his NATO-nation browbeating beyond all rational boundaries, linking the get-Greenland campaign to the Nobel Peace Prize–shaped space in his trophy den — following the threat of now-scrapped tariffs. “In a saner and better world, we would be having a serious discussion of the 25th Amendment of the Constitution right now,” Jim wrote.

 

Even if Trump’s antics yield a real deal, this week’s Davos gathering offered a glimpse of their dangerous consequences. By the time the president assured the World Economic Forum audience that he wouldn’t actually use military force to acquire the resource-rich and inhospitable island, leaders had already begun eulogizing the postwar order.

 

“The old order is not coming back,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said. With characteristic charm, Trump sneered from the podium, “Canada lives because of the United States — remember that, Mark.” This, as he appealed to the Europeans to cede the territory as a token of appreciation and for the sake of international security.

 

On The Editors, Noah warned that “essential elements of the American national character abroad” — respect for sovereignty, respect for democracy, etc. — are being tossed aside. Even the Euro nationalists are souring on Trump as a result of the Greenland gambit. In addition to Jim’s ten-point rebuttal, I commend to you everything Andrew Stuttaford has written about the strains this episode has put on America’s alliances. The always-diplomatic Andrew underscores how Trump’s conduct also distracted from otherwise valid concerns about Greenland, which certainly would be a useful piece of national real estate (cue Jeff Bridges):

 

The irony of all this is that the administration has been right to stress that under-defended and very sparsely populated Greenland is both a vulnerability and, through its raw materials, an opportunity. At the same time, however, the way it has set about remedying the former and pursuing the latter has been counter-productive and, in the case of the former, something that could largely have been resolved under existing treaty arrangements.

 

NR’s editorial urges all sides, most importantly Trump, to take the temperature down, in hopes of working toward an agreement amicably — noting that “what has been said cannot be unsaid, and some of the damage caused by this episode will take a very long time to put right.”

 

It didn’t have to be this way. Trump could have, and should have, made clear from the start that military force was never an option against allies. He could have negotiated for what he wants short of ownership, without rattling the West. Failing that — and looking to the precedent of his intervention in the performing arts — he could have simply announced that Greenland will henceforth be renamed “Trump,” then updated its website and signage.

 

In all seriousness, such a stunt would have had the benefit of only making the world further question his mental state, not America’s moral authority.