The Greenland Fiasco is Deeply Embarrassing
So very embarrassing.
[This blog will always be free to read, but it’s also how I pay my bills. If you have suggestions or feedback on how I can earn your paid subscription, shoot me an email: cmclymer@gmail.com. And if this is too big of a commitment, I’m always thankful for a simple cup of coffee.]
One of my favorite bits of political wisdom comes from the fourth season of Parks and Recreation, the political satire which, much to my chagrin, has been hewing ever closer to the reality of America with each passing year as much as my beloved The West Wing has drifted away from it.
Ron Swanson—droll libertarian, meat evangelist, and strident enemy of nonsense—is giving his protégé Leslie Knope a pep talk on her workload while running for the Pawnee City Council when he drops this gem:
“Never half-ass two things. Whole-ass one thing.”
As I write this, Donald Trump has illegally invaded Venezuela and basically declared himself its de facto leader. He continues to make a mess of the ongoing crises in Gaza and Ukraine. He’s managed—in a remarkably short time—to mostly waste eight decades of American diplomatic capital, most of which will probably never be recovered in our lifetimes.
The United States, under Trump’s helm, is not nearly as feared as it is loathed, nor nearly as respected as it is begrudgingly tolerated—much like an undesirable guest at a wedding who is avoided only because he happens to be the bride’s father and has reluctantly agreed, through gritted teeth and an alcohol-heavy breath, to pay for the catering.
In the midst of all this—the chaos, the humiliations, the failures of his abysmal presidency—Trump and his pathetic cronies are somehow still banging the drum about annexing Greenland.
This started back in 2019 during Trump’s first term when The Wall Street Journal reported that he was probing among his advisors whether it might be possible for the United States to “acquire” Greenland — you know, like a real estate purchase.
Greenland is a self-governing territory in the Kingdom of Denmark. It has its own parliament and centralized government and economic infrastructure. It has control over nearly all domestic matters. It basically leaves everything else related to foreign policy and defense to Denmark.
It is not legally independent, but it’s pretty damn close to it. Greenlanders are a proud people, and they were not thrilled when the first reporting came out about Trump treating them like a transferrable asset in a portfolio.
Kim Kielsen, prime minister at the time, was quite blunt: “Greenland is not for sale.”
His Danish counterpart Mette Frederiksen, who had just taken office a few months prior and still serves as prime minister, firmly echoed that sentiment: “Greenland is not for sale. Greenland is not Danish. Greenland belongs to Greenland. I strongly hope that this is not meant seriously.”
She later reiterated: “It's an absurd discussion, and Kim Kielsen has of course made it clear that Greenland is not for sale. That's where the conversation ends.”
That’s where it should have ended. Greenland flatly dismissed the idea. Denmark has zero legal standing on the matter and backed up Greenland. The only way Greenland could become part of the U.S. is by force, and gosh, with Denmark being a member of NATO, it would be crazy for the United States to invade an ally, right?
Uh… right?
Fast-forward to last January—a year ago this week, in fact—when Trump was asked at his second presser after the election if he would confirm that he wouldn’t attempt to take Greenland by force through military or economic means, and he refused to do so, stating: “I can say this, we need them for economic security.”
This was two weeks after he posted on Truth Social: “For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity.”
A month after that presser, GOP Congressman Buddy Carter of Georgia announced a bill to rename Greenland to “Red, White, and Blueland” — possibly attempting to suck up to Trump and possibly a trolling tactic assigned by Trump himself and possibly a trial balloon to escalate the conversation. Probably all three.
Then in March, the day before J.D. Vance made his ill-fated visit to Greenland, Trump said this to reporters in the Oval Office:
“So we'll, I think, we'll go as far as we have to go. We need Greenland. And the world needs us to have Greenland, including Denmark. Denmark has to have us have Greenland. And, you know, we'll see what happens. But if we don't have Greenland, we can't have great international security.”
Vance’s visit was a disaster. It was clear from the jump he was trying to convince Greenland they could have it better with the U.S. than with Denmark, but his claim that Denmark were “underinvesting in the security architecture” of Greenland was read by many as more of a veiled threat than an undiplomatic critique.
It was also an unexpected trip. It turns out the Trump administration failed to properly inform Greenland’s government of the full itinerary planned by Vance and his wife Usha on top of them not being invited in the first place.
Trump actually lied to reporters, claiming Greenland had invited the delegation, and Greenland’s government immediately rejected the claim.
Usha Vance had originally planned to lead a private U.S. delegation in attending Avannaata Qimussersua, which is Greenland’s annual national sled dog race, but her husband decided to join her at the last minute and—surprise—expanded the trip to include, among other things, a visit to the U.S. Space Force base in Pituffik on the northwest coast of Greenland.
They were greeted with protests across the island, and Múte B. Egede, the outgoing prime minister, splashed more cold water on the whole thing: “We are now at a level where this cannot in any way be characterized as a harmless visit from a politician’s wife… The only purpose is to demonstrate power over us.”
Did I mention Greenland hadn’t invited anyone from the U.S. for any purpose whatsoever? They didn’t formally invite Usha Vance to the sled dog race. They didn’t invite J.D. Vance to meet with leaders, much less visit the country. The entire trip was a one-sided affair.
And the optics were so embarrassing that the Vances would up cancelling most of the itinerary, spending only one day there. Usha didn’t even go to the damn sled dog race.
In the intervening time since J.D. Vance completely shit the bed during his uninvited visit, Greenland had mostly faded into the background amid the Trump admin’s cascade of other foreign policy misadventures.
But then, on Saturday, Katie Miller—far-right podcaster and wife of Stephen Miller—posted an image on Twitter of Greenland’s geography overlaid with an American flag and the caption: “SOON”.
Because the Millers are part of Trump’s inner circle, this was interpreted by many to be yet another trial balloon ordered by Trump to keep stoking the conversation on annexing Greenland.
He then followed it up with remarks in an interview with Michael Scherer of The Atlantic that was published yesterday morning: “But we do need Greenland, absolutely. We need it for defense.”
And boy, oh boy, all of this did not go over well with the leaders of Greenland and Denmark, who have spent the past two days making it abundantly clear they are displeased, to put it mildly, with the threatening language coming out of MAGA world.
Jens-Frederik Nielsen, prime minister of Greenland, responded in a lengthy post on Facebook, which included this bit: “When the president of the United States talks about 'we need Greenland' and connects us with Venezuela and military intervention, it's not just wrong. This is so disrespectful."
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen backed him up in her own Facebook post:
I have to say this very directly to the United States:
It makes absolutely no sense to talk about the need for the US to take over Greenland. The United States has no access to annex one of the three countries in the Commonwealth.
The Kingdom of Denmark - and therefore Greenland - is a part of NATO and is therefore covered by the alliance’s security guarantee. We already have a defense agreement today between the Kingdom and the United States, which gives the United States wide access to Greenland. And we from the Kingdom have invested significantly in the security of the Arctic.
I would, therefore, strongly urge that on the side of the United States, stop the threats against a historically close ally and to another country and another people, who have very clearly stated that they are not for sale.
Nor, unsurprisingly, were our allies pleased.
European Union spokesperson Annita Hipper said: “The EU will continue to uphold the principles of national sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders and the UN Charter. These are universal principles, and we will not stop defending them.”
She reiterated that Greenland controls its own destiny.
French Foreign Minister Pascal Confavreux was direct: “Greenland belongs to Greenland's people and to Denmark's people. It is up to them to decide what they wish to do. Borders cannot be changed by force.”
Even British Prime Minister Kier Starmer—not exactly known for being blunt—could not have been more direct when asked by a reporter if he would tell Trump to back off regarding Greenland:
Yes, Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark must decide the future of Greenland and only Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark. And Denmark is a close ally in Europe, is a Nato ally and it is very important that the future of Greenland is for the Kingdom of Denmark and for Greenland themselves and only for Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark.
Basically, the whole of the Western Alliance is telling Trump to shut the hell up, and they’re definitely exasperated with this distraction given that Russia continues to bear down on Ukraine and present an existential threat to the security of Europe.
Okay, so, what’s the play here? Why is Trump doing this?
Sure, it’s a useful distraction in the same vein as all his other childish nonsense; it takes up space in the American political discourse, away from the Epstein files and the sluggish U.S. economy. Sure, that’s a cynical benefit.
But there are two big reasons why Greenland is attractive in its own right: it has a key geographical position between the U.S. and Russia, basically a buffer zone that could be further bolstered with U.S. military assets, and it’s home to some of the largest undeveloped areas of rare-earth elements (REEs) in the world.
REEs are used in just about every form of modern tech: smartphones, computers, electric vehicles, advanced weapons systems, satellites, other space applications, etc.
China currently dominates the global supply of mined, processed, and refined REEs, and the U.S. and Europe would love to develop non-Chinese supply lines to meet military and commercial needs.
But they don’t need Greenland to do this; it would just make it a lot easier, and from Trump’s perspective, he’d probably love to cut deals with American corporations looking to get in on Greenland’s natural resources.
You might be wondering: well, if we need the REEs for global security and Greenland has them, why wouldn’t they be okay with a compromise that allows for limited mining?
The problem here is that Greenland’s REEs are mixed with uranium, which presents a grave risk of radioactive pollution, and the areas for mining are near population centers, which threatens the safety of their citizens.
That’s why Greenland’s government has banned uranium mining in recent years and made it clear their people will not be treated as collateral in service to an anti-China strategy.
In any case, there are only two ways for Trump to annex Greenland: 1) convince their government to declare full independence from Denmark and then join the United States or 2) take it by force.
If it wasn’t yet crystal clear, Greenland has zero interest. Beyond its own leaders’ statements, polling shows their people aren’t down with this: 85 percent of Greenlanders are opposed to joining the U.S.; just six percent are in favor.
That leaves the second option, and I want to be clear about this: the U.S. will not take military action against Greenland. Even with Trump’s annoyance with NATO, he knows that taking the territory “by force” would leave the U.S. desperately isolated, and that’s not a risk even he is willing to take.
Here’s what Trump is hoping to accomplish: that he and his cronies can exert enough public pressure on Greenland to meet him in the middle and allow for an increased U.S. military presence on the island and some degree of mining rights of rare-earth elements.
That’s the whole game here. It’s a shameless bluff. It’s a transparent mafia tactic.
And it will not work, but he figures that there’s nothing to lose by doing this. It’s not like saber-rattling against Greenland will hurt him that much in the Midterms, and Trump’s admin has enough capital with the heft of the U.S. government that they’re not going to lose much footing with America’s allies.
It’s the diplomatic equivalent of meeting a modest raise when you’re only holding a pair of nines, just enough to get to the turn card and maybe the river.
In poker, it would be bold. In international diplomacy, it’s utterly embarrassing.
To the people of Greenland: please know that Americans are generally mortified by all this. The vast majority of us strongly believe in national sovereignty. Even a significant portion of Trump supporters are nonplussed by his antics toward your nation.
Hold fast, hold firm. Whole-ass your resistance while he’s half-assing his intimidation.
We’re with you.
I did not know that Greenland's REEs are intertwined with uranium. That certainly changes the dynamics, or at least it should. But, Trump is a complete embarrassment, domestically and internationally. Sometimes, I wish I could go into suspended animation and wake up on Jan. 20, 2029. Next best option, resist and press forward.
Your observations on this, and most other things, are very insightful and informative. This is precisely why I subscribe to this Substack. Thanks for all you do.