Why Trump Wants Greenland: The $100M Gold Proposal

Overview

To understand why a Trump-era Washington would push aggressively to “take” Greenland, you have to treat the idea less as a sudden whim and more as the resurfacing of a very old American strategic program. The program begins with post–Civil War expansionist thinking, matures through World War II emergency arrangements that gave the United States de facto control of Greenland’s security, and culminates in a Cold War logic where the Arctic becomes the shortest attack corridor between Eurasia and North America.

The overlooked hinge in this story is a mid‑20th‑century purchase attempt—an offer framed as roughly $100 million in gold—that remained politically sensitive for decades and was only declassified much later. That proposal is not just a curiosity: it reveals how U.S. planners learned to convert geography into leverage, and why modern great‑power competition makes Greenland feel “non‑optional” to a White House that prioritizes hard security.

Seen through a policy lens, Greenland is not an anomaly but a case study in how geography, early-warning infrastructure, and alliance constraints convert territory into long-duration leverage rather than short-term diplomacy.

The Monroe Doctrine, Expanded North

U.S. interest in Greenland is rooted in a hemispheric defense tradition often associated with the Monroe Doctrine: keep hostile external powers from gaining strategically meaningful footholds in the Western Hemisphere. Over time, “the hemisphere” was interpreted not only as the Caribbean and Latin America, but also the North Atlantic approaches that connect Europe to North America.

Greenland sits on that seam. In peacetime it can look like a distant island; in wartime, it becomes a gate. If a rival can operate from Greenland—or deny U.S. access to it—then Canada’s eastern flank, the North Atlantic sea lanes, and the air routes that tie the U.S. to Europe all become harder to defend.

Seward’s Post–Civil War Logic: Alaska Was Step One

After the Civil War, Secretary of State William H. Seward pushed the United States into the North Pacific and Arctic with the purchase of Alaska in 1867. In the same strategic frame, Greenland and Iceland were viewed as the missing pieces for dominating the North Atlantic. The argument was blunt: control the nodes, and you shape the traffic—commercial and military—that must pass between continents.

In that worldview, Greenland and Iceland could also tighten the strategic enclosure of Canada. The goal was not necessarily immediate annexation; it was to create long‑term pressure and dependency by surrounding Canada with U.S. controlled maritime and air approaches. It is an example of how 19th‑century power politics can hide inside “geographic common sense.”

The 1917 Virgin Islands Deal: Recognition With a Condition

In World War I, the United States bought the Danish West Indies (now the U.S. Virgin Islands) to keep Germany from using Caribbean ports for submarines. The transaction included a diplomatic detail that later became strategically important: Washington formally recognized Denmark’s sovereignty over all of Greenland.

On the surface, recognition looked like restraint. In practice, it acted like a clause of control: Denmark was implicitly expected to ensure Greenland remained inside a friendly sphere—meaning no hostile European power could seize it, and no “status change” could occur without U.S. acceptance. In other words, Greenland’s legal sovereignty could stay Danish as long as its strategic orientation stayed American-aligned.

1940: Denmark Falls, and a Diplomatic “Workaround” Appears

When Nazi Germany occupied Denmark in April 1940, the Danish state was forced to operate under coercion. That created an unusual opening. Denmark’s ambassador in Washington, Henrik Kauffmann, refused to follow orders from Copenhagen, declared he represented a “free Denmark,” and took responsibility for safeguarding Denmark’s overseas interests. The occupation authorities branded him a traitor and confiscated his property.

For the Roosevelt administration, Kauffmann’s stance provided a legal-political bridge: the United States could engage Greenland’s defense without formally entering European war politics. The arrangement was, in effect, a way to treat Greenland as strategically indispensable while minimizing the claim that the U.S. was rewriting sovereignty by force.

The 1941 Agreement for the Defense of Greenland: De Facto Sovereignty

On April 9, 1941, the U.S. and Kauffmann signed the Agreement for the Defense of Greenland. It authorized American forces to station troops and build whatever bases were necessary, and it effectively barred any other country from altering Greenland’s status without U.S. consent. Denmark’s sovereignty was reaffirmed in form, but the United States obtained the practical powers that matter in a crisis: basing, logistics, and security control.

That gap—legal sovereignty on paper, operational sovereignty on the ground—is what many analysts describe as de facto sovereignty. For local Greenlanders, the shift was tangible: supplies, consumer goods, communications, and protection flowed through American channels while Denmark was a distant, occupied metropole.

Why Greenland Mattered in WWII: Cryolite and Weather

Greenland’s strategic value in WWII was not abstract. It was tied to production inputs and operational intelligence. Greenland possessed a rare natural supply of cryolite, a mineral used as a flux in aluminum production—critical when air power demanded enormous quantities of lightweight metal. In parallel, Greenland’s weather observations mattered because North Atlantic systems typically move west-to-east; accurate forecasts from Greenland improved Allied planning for bombing campaigns and major operations in Europe.

After 1945: The Arctic “Flips” the Map

As aviation and rocketry evolved, the world stopped being strategically “flat.” If you center the globe on the Arctic, Greenland becomes a chokepoint along great‑circle routes between North America and Eurasia—the shortest paths for long-range bombers and later ballistic missiles. Control of Greenland translates into earlier warning, more time to intercept, and a higher probability of defeating a surprise strike.

That is the technical core of Greenland’s enduring value: it is a place where physics (shortest routes on a sphere) becomes policy (forward sensors, airfields, and basing rights). Once U.S. planners internalized this, the question became not “Why Greenland?” but “How do we ensure nobody else can ever credibly threaten it?”

The $100 Million Gold Offer and a Problem of Permanence

In the early Cold War transition, U.S. military leadership judged the termination language in the 1941 agreement to be politically fragile. As Danish nationalism recovered after liberation, Copenhagen could demand renegotiation. For Washington, dependence on a revocable agreement created a permanence problem: Greenland was too important to rely on shifting domestic politics in Denmark.

The cleanest solution, from a hard-security perspective, was purchase. The reported proposal—framed as roughly $100 million in gold—was an attempt to turn a wartime workaround into an irreversible territorial settlement. The fact that the offer remained sensitive for decades underscores how acquisition was seen as strategically logical but politically explosive.

Why This Blueprint Resonates in a Trump-Era World

Modern competition adds new layers to the old logic. Three stand out:

Deterrence and early warning: As precision weapons, long-range drones, and missiles proliferate, the value of forward sensors, tracking, and intercept time increases—not decreases.
Alliance leverage: Greenland sits inside NATO geography but is politically tied to Denmark. That creates a structural tension between U.S. operational needs and European domestic constraints—exactly the kind of friction a transactional administration tries to “solve” by changing ownership or control.
Arctic access and infrastructure: Melting sea ice does not make the Arctic easy, but it does raise the strategic salience of ports, airfields, undersea cables, and satellites at high latitudes. Control of territory can simplify permitting, investment, and military build-out.

Taken together, these factors illustrate a broader U.S. policy pattern: when strategic uncertainty rises, Washington prefers arrangements that minimize reversibility, even at the cost of diplomatic friction.

What “Taking Greenland” Really Means

In practice, the spectrum runs from stronger basing rights to a formal purchase or some intermediate sovereign arrangement. The historical record shows that the United States has repeatedly preferred solutions that minimize uncertainty: permanent access, exclusive veto over third-party influence, and the ability to expand infrastructure quickly in a crisis.

That is why Greenland keeps returning to the agenda. The details and rhetoric change across administrations, but the strategic requirement remains: prevent hostile powers from gaining a foothold on the Arctic gateway to North America, and lock in the physical systems—airfields, radars, logistics—that convert the island’s location into usable military advantage.

The enduring question is not whether Greenland will ever change hands, but how major powers increasingly treat territory, infrastructure, and basing rights as policy instruments for managing long-term strategic uncertainty.

Sources

Reproduction is permitted with attribution to Hi K Robot (https://www.hikrobot.com).