The United States is ramping up its interest in acquiring Greenland with new legislation aimed at supporting President Trump’s ambitions for the icy territory, long owned by Denmark. Rep. Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) has introduced the so-called Red, White, and Blueland Act of 2025, which empowers the president to negotiate the purchase of Greenland and proposes to change its name to the rather patriotic "Red, White, and Blueland." Carter asserted the urgency of this prospect, claiming, "America is back and will soon be bigger than ever with the addition of Red, White, and Blueland," adding, "President Trump has correctly identified the purchase of what is now Greenland as a national security priority."
The proposed legislation advocates for expedited federal paperwork to facilitate the name change within six months. This legislation signifies heightened efforts from Trump, who, after securing re-election, has reinvigorated his long-held ambitions to acquire Greenland. Historically, the Danish government has maintained its stance: the island is not for sale. Still, Trump has hinted at the potential for using military force to achieve these acquisition goals, underscoring the seriousness with which he perceives this issue.
Geopolitical experts have weighed in on the matter, noting the strategic importance of Greenland, particularly as the impacts of climate change accelerate access to the Arctic. Trump believes acquiring the territory is pivotal due to its abundant natural resources and key geographic location, especially as ice melts and sea routes become more viable. Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has echoed this sentiment, emphasizing America’s need for greater influence over Greenland’s affairs. "If we're already on the hook for having to do this, then we might as well have more control over what happens there," Rubio stated during his appearance on "The Megyn Kelly Show."
Support for the acquisition extends beyond Rubio. Vice President JD Vance has also expressed skepticism about Denmark's commitment to ensuring national security over Greenland, calling attention to the need for U.S. oversight, especially concerning strategic sea lanes utilized by China and Russia. "Denmark, which controls Greenland, [is] not doing its job, and it's not being a good ally," Vance conveyed during a recent interview on Fox News. His comments reflect growing impatience within U.S. leadership for more definitive action concerning Greenland.
Greenland, which boasts only about 57,000 inhabitants, has been under Danish rule since the 19th century. The island, contrary to its name, is largely covered by ice, with much of its landmass uninhabitable compared to its neighboring island, Iceland, which is more hospitable. Despite this, Trump has set his eyes on the territory as more than just real estate; he sees it as integral to fortifying the United States' standing against adversaries like China and Russia.
Before his return to office, Trump assigned his son, Donald Trump Jr., to undertake diplomatic missions to Greenland, where he engaged with locals and reinforced the administration's priorities. Videos from this trip showed locals wearing MAGA hats, symbolizing the administration's outreach and branding efforts toward the territory.
Looking at the bigger picture, the discussion surrounding Greenland highlights the U.S.'s broader interest in territorial expansion. Beyond Greenland, Trump has included proposals involving consideration for Canada, the Panama Canal, and even the war-torn Gaza Strip as potential targets for future American territorial ambitions.
Critics argue this fondness for expansionist policies could herald complex international ramifications, especially considering existing alliances, Greenland’s longstanding relationship with Denmark, and the geopolitical tension already present due to competing interests in the Arctic region. While the march toward acquisition may seem whimsical to some, the leaders pushing this agenda are framing it as necessary for national security and stability.
Although the road to acquiring Greenland appears fraught with obstacles, with Denmark steadfastly opposed to selling the territory, the combined influence of U.S. politicians could compel reconsideration of the established norm. If negotiations move forward, it would stand as one of the most audacious geopolitical maneuvers of our time, reshaping the Arctic strategy and putting American interests at the forefront of this increasingly contested region.
Those advocating for the acquisition, particularly under the current administration, maintain hope for significant advancements—yet it remains to be seen how all the stakeholders, especially Denmark and the people of Greenland, will respond to America's bold aspirations. Should these negotiations evolve, they could redefine both U.S. foreign policy and the international relations posture of the Arctic, marking the United States as not only a defender of freedoms but also as a bold player on the global chessboard.