Let’s dig down into these reasons:
Donald Trump’s interest in having Greenland and Canada become part of the United States stems from a mix of strategic, economic, and geopolitical considerations, though his public statements often blend serious intent with provocative rhetoric. As of February 23, 2025, his second term has just begun, and these ideas—revived from his first term and transition period—reflect both longstanding U.S. interests and his approach to expanding American influence.
For Greenland, the appeal is rooted in its strategic location and resources. Situated between North America and Europe, Greenland offers a critical vantage point in the Arctic, where melting ice due to climate change is opening new shipping routes—like the Northwest Passage—and exposing valuable mineral deposits, including rare earth elements, uranium, and potentially oil and gas. These resources are vital for advanced technologies (e.g., batteries, clean energy) and are increasingly contested by powers like China and Russia, which already control significant Arctic territory (Russia with 53% of the coastline) and have economic stakes there (China via investments). Trump has framed this as a national security issue, arguing in January 2025 aboard Air Force One that U.S. control of Greenland is about “protecting the free world” from Russian and Chinese ships he claims are “all over the place” in the region. The U.S. already has a military foothold via the Pituffik Space Base (formerly Thule), established under a 1951 agreement with Denmark, but owning Greenland would lock in dominance over Arctic routes and resources, countering rivals without relying on NATO ally Denmark, which governs Greenland as an autonomous territory.
Economically, Greenland’s untapped wealth appeals to Trump’s deal-making instincts. He’s suggested it could benefit the U.S. while claiming Greenlanders “want to be with us,” though local leaders like Prime Minister Múte Egede insist it’s “not for sale” and prioritize independence from Denmark over American control. Trump’s refusal to rule out economic or military pressure—hinted at in a tense call with Danish PM Mette Frederiksen earlier this month—underscores his view of Greenland as a geopolitical prize worth pushing for, even if it strains alliances.
For Canada, Trump’s rhetoric is less about literal annexation and more about leveraging economic and security dynamics. He’s called Canada the “51st state” half-jokingly, as in a November 2024 dinner with outgoing PM Justin Trudeau at Mar-a-Lago, where he quipped it might be better off joining the U.S. if it can’t survive his threatened 25% tariffs. In January 2025, he doubled down, saying aboard Air Force One that Canada “should be a state” because it’s “completely dependent” on the U.S., costing America “$250 billion annually” through trade imbalances he claims he could fix “in one day.” This reflects his broader “America First” agenda: Canada’s 9.98 million square kilometers and shared 5,525-mile border make it a natural extension of U.S. territory, enhancing control over North America’s resources (e.g., oil, timber, minerals) and eliminating the “artificially drawn line” he’s criticized for hindering integration.
Security-wise, Trump argues the U.S. “basically protects Canada,” a point echoed in posts on X claiming it’s the only shield against hypothetical threats (e.g., Iceland, humorously). Unifying North America under U.S. leadership could streamline defense—think NORAD expansion—and counter Russian or Chinese moves in the Arctic, where Canada’s northern coast is key. However, Canada’s leadership and public fiercely reject this; Trudeau quipped there’s “not a snowball’s chance in hell” of it happening, and polls show only 10% support integration.
Trump’s approach blends 19th-century Manifest Destiny vibes with modern realpolitik. Critics see it as an imperialistic bluster—alienating allies like Denmark (a NATO partner) and Canada, potentially weakening U.S. soft power. Supporters, including some X posts, frame it as a bold play for minerals, borders, and strategic unity against Russia and China. Practically, neither Greenland nor Canada is likely to join the U.S. willingly—Denmark won’t cede sovereignty, and Canada’s identity hinges on not being American. Trump’s real aim might be leverage: pressuring Denmark for more Arctic cooperation or Canada for trade concessions. Whether this is serious policy or chaotic negotiation tactics, it’s classic Trump—disruptive, ambitious, and divisive.