President Trump’s renewed focus on Greenland has unleashed predictable howls from the usual chorus of international elites, but make no mistake: this is a matter of American security and common sense, not some reckless dream. Greenland sits astride the Arctic chokepoints and holds mineral and strategic value that any serious nation would protect, and the debate should be whether we secure America, not bow to lecturing bureaucrats. Malik Hansen, speaking on The Will Cain Show, warned that some Greenlanders feel pressured about their right to self-determination as U.S. officials press discussions—but that concern should not be twisted into an argument against American engagement.
Critics like to frame President Trump’s interest as imperialistic, but the president himself and his national security team have been explicit about protecting American interests in the face of Chinese and Russian moves in the Arctic. Trump has even talked plainly about the importance of ownership and permanent basing to guarantee security, reflecting a seriousness about national defense that too many diplomats only pay lip service to. Vice President Vance and other officials have argued that the best way to stop Chinese and Russian encroachment is to offer Greenlanders a real security partnership with an America that values their safety.
Of course Greenlanders must decide their own future, and anyone who truly respects sovereignty should be clear-eyed: self-determination is meaningless if a distant great power like China fills the vacuum with influence and weapons. Malik Hansen’s plea to protect Greenlanders’ right to choose is an honest worry, and it strengthens the conservative case that the United States should offer a path that preserves their freedom while denying rivals a foothold. The choice shouldn’t be framed as America versus Greenland; it should be Greenland with America as a partner, not a protectorate forced into dependency by outsiders.
Meanwhile, European leaders who tut-tut at American assertiveness should remember who actually defends the West. Britain’s current leadership rushed to scold Washington about any heavy-handed approach, yet often fails to match words with the hard power commitments the situation demands. It’s hypocrisy to lecture the United States about sovereignty when Brussels and other capitals have been slow to confront Chinese investments and Russian maneuvers on their own periphery. The real lesson is that America can and should lead with strength, offering Greenlanders an attractive alternative to authoritarian influence.
The left and international-law purists shriek about norms and “the rule-based order” when the uncomfortable truth is that norms don’t protect you from opportunistic rivals; deterrence does. If Denmark cannot or will not provide adequate defense against external pressures, then reasonable offers from an allied superpower deserve consideration rather than reflexive condemnation. Conservatives must push the argument that freedom is protected by power, not platitudes, and that the United States acting in its interest often secures liberty for others in the process.
Americans should welcome a debate about Greenland because it forces us to choose between strength and surrender, not between sovereignty and benevolence. If Washington can craft a deal that respects Greenlandic self-determination while keeping communist designs at bay, that is not theft—it’s leadership that preserves freedom for generations to come. Patriots should stand behind a policy that puts American security first, backs the rights of small peoples to choose their partners, and denies our adversaries the chance to gain strategic ground on our watch.
