On February 11, 2025, U.S. Representative Earl L. "Buddy" Carter (R-GA) unveiled significant legislation aimed at authorizing President Donald Trump to negotiate the purchase of Greenland. This proposal, which suggests renaming the icy island to "Red, White, and Blueland," attempts to reignite interest surrounding the acquisition of the territory owned by Denmark.
Rep. Carter's announcement was framed within the broader narrative of American expansionism, with the bill stating, "America is back and will soon be bigger than ever with the addition of Red, White, and Blueland." He emphasized Trump's identification of this acquisition as not merely strategic, but as a national security premise.
Hay not been pleased with the notion of selling Greenland, Denmark maintains the island isn’t available, regardless of the political maneuvers from Washington. Instead, the Danish leadership has mentioned more cooperation with U.S. military presence, especially since the U.S. operates significant defense assets there.
The proposed legislation, titled the "Red, White, and Blueland Act of 2025," includes clear provisions stipulating the Secretary of the Interior is to complete the bureaucratic naming process within six months, once the acquisition occurs. Yet, many are left questioning the feasibility of such plans.
Greenland, the world’s largest island, has its own complicated relationship with its ownership. It has been part of the Kingdom of Denmark since the 19th century and gained home rule back in 1979. The island’s head of government, Múte Bourup Egede, has asserted, “Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale.” His declaration reflects the sentiment among Greenlanders, where recent polls indicate only 6% support for the notion of joining the United States, resisting the proposed U.S. acquisition vehemently.
The reason behind U.S. interests lie primarily within Greenland’s abundant natural resources and its location between the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans. Trump has long argued for its acquisition amid broader discussions about U.S. national security related to the Arctic region. His statements have historically pointed to the strategic value and the necessity for Americans to have sovereignty over these resources, especially as global politics shift attention northward with melting ice caps and declining natural resources elsewhere.
Supporters of the bill within the Trump administration have also been vocal about the importance of controlling this territory. Secretary of State Marco Rubio underscored the existing obligations of the U.S. to defend Greenland, echoing sentiments on the necessity of greater control by stating, “If we’re already on the hook for having to do [defending Greenland], then we might as well have more control over what happens there.”
Similarly, Vice President JD Vance expressed skepticism toward Denmark, implying the nation hasn't upheld its end within NATO commitments. He stated, “It's really important to our national security. There are sea lanes there... Denmark... is not being a good ally.” His rousing commentary on Greenland's pivotal role reflects the substantial political backing the idea of acquisition possesses, albeit limited exclusively to Republican lawmakers loyal to Trump.
Despite the apparent fervor with which the Trump administration has approached the topic, few concrete details emerge on the financial mechanics surrounding this proposed purchase. How the U.S. would manage negotiations with Denmark and what specific strategies might be employed remain unclear within the confines of the proposal. Many lawmakers and experts suspect expansion through enhanced military collaboration may replace outright ownership, especially with the Danish government appearing reluctant to entertain any sale, but still open to increased military operations.
Critics of the initiative warn against it for multiple reasons—many fear the fallout from negative international relations if the U.S. were to pursue this aggressively. The potential paths between military aid cooperation versus outright annexation echo through discussions, calling attention to the sovereignty of the governed alongside resistance from both local and international factions.
With the bill needing committee review before any vote potentially emerges, the fate of "Red, White, and Blueland" is far from certain. At this stage, it remains part of the larger conversation about national security and American foreign policy interests within the Arctic sphere, representing not just political aspirations of expansion but the complex international dynamics involved when discussing territory, governance, and ambition.