Is Greenland worth what it will cost the United States?

President Trump continues to escalate the controversy around the United States acquiring Greenland. Denmark—and, by extension, the rest of NATO—continue to insist it’s not for sale; the vast majority of Greenlanders don’t want to become American, and most Americans don’t think it’s worth the price. But what could continuing down this road actually cost the United States? And what is the best way to measure that cost?

Why it matters

Since President Trump returned to office, the United States and most of NATO have been heading toward a fork in the road where the relationship between America and its European allies will fundamentally—and, perhaps, permanently—change. Greenland is shaping up to be that inflection point, and what happens when it’s reached could have a profound impact on the future of the world order.  

The backstory: An eighty-year pursuit

President Trump first publicly discussed acquiring Greenland toward the end of his first term in 2019. He then made it one of his first initiatives upon returning to office last year, even going so far as to dispatch Vice President J.D. Vance to visit the island last March. However, little changed following that visit, and now, ten months later, the President seems poised to make sure history doesn’t repeat itself. 

And, to be sure, there is quite a bit of history here. 

President Truman offered Denmark $100 million for Greenland back in 1946, recognizing its strategic importance against the Soviet Union in language that closely mirrors the terms Trump has used to describe its significance today. Even though Denmark turned Truman down in much the same fashion as it has resisted the overtures of our current president, the US still pushed forward by installing several key military bases on the island. 

Unfortunately, all but one of those bases has since gone into disrepair. Once the Soviet Union collapsed, the United States didn’t deem any of them outside of the Pituffik Space Base worth maintaining. 

For a time, that approach made sense. The Arctic was largely impassible, and the newly formed Russia did not represent nearly as great a threat as the Soviet Union did before its collapse. Now, neither of those reasons remains valid. 

Russia and China have increased their presence in the region, and melting ice caps have opened shipping lanes that were previously closed off. Moreover, the missile defense systems that form a primary deterrent against attacks rely heavily on Greenland’s location, particularly for the new Golden Dome. As President Trump described, this “highly complex system can only work at its maximum potential and efficiency, because of angles, metes, and bounds, if this Land is included in it.”

So, given that background, would Greenland truly be worth what it might cost the United States to acquire? There are two ways of answering that question, and both provide important context for where this could lead America. 

Greenland’s financial cost

The first cost to the United States is pretty straightforward. The projected price tag for buying Greenland is somewhere in the neighborhood of $700 billion. As part of that price, the administration is reportedly prepared to pay the citizens of Greenland between $10,000 and $100,000 each to vote in favor of joining the United States. 

Setting aside the geopolitical implications—we’ll come back to those in a moment—could an island that is roughly 80 percent ice possibly justify that price?

The World Bank puts Greenland’s GDP at around $3.5-4 billion per year, most of which comes from the fishing industry. That math doesn’t work, but what about its other resources?

It’s thought that Greenland currently sits on roughly 1.5 million metric tons of mineable rare-earth minerals, in addition to 17.5 billion barrels of oil and 148 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. It is not currently mining much of that, with even the oil and gas largely paused following a 2021 moratorium on new oil drilling.

A study by the American Action Forum (AAF) found that Greenland’s geological resources could be worth more than $4 trillion. And while the startup cost of accessing those minerals could be steep, the math starts to make a lot more sense in that light.

Yet, the economics alone may not be sufficient to explain Trump’s fixation on the island. And that, in turn, leads to the second cost that must be considered. 

Greenland’s political cost

While the military and strategic benefits of Greenland have already been outlined, the political price of continuing to pursue the island must also be taken into account. Acquiring Greenland is not really all that popular with anyone outside of Trump’s inner circle. 85 percent of Greenlanders don’t want to leave Denmark for the US, while only 17 percent of Americans thought the hypothetical purchase was a good idea. 

And those opinions go down even faster when the notion of taking the island by force is suggested. 

Republican Senator John Kennedy, for example, described the idea of attacking Greenland as “weapons-grade stupid.” House Speaker Mike Johnson was a bit more circumspect, simply stating, “I don’t anticipate any boots on the ground anywhere, anytime soon.”

Still, President Trump has not backed down from the possibility of taking Greenland if negotiations remain fruitless. And he’s maintained that position while knowing that attacking the island would mean, at the very least, fracturing America’s alliance with the other NATO countries. 

His willingness to entertain that possibility begins to make more sense, though, when seen in light of the administration’s national defense strategy. 

Who is my ally?

I covered much of what that strategy contained when it was made public last year, but the aspect relevant to our current conversation is how Trump redefined what it means to be an ally of America.

Gone are the days when a shared history was an acceptable foundation for continued partnership. And that is particularly the case when it comes to Europe. 

If you look at the countries where President Trump has invested the bulk of his time and attention since returning to office, it becomes clear that he values countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel far more than England, France, or Germany. And the reason is simple: those Middle Eastern nations see the world like he does in ways that Europe simply does not. They share his transactional approach, valuing what allies have to offer in the present above what they may have offered in the past. 

As a result, whereas Europe—and even much of America outside Trump’s administration—still values alliances because of their shared history, Trump only really seems to value them if they’re useful in shaping that history going forward. That means, when it comes to Greenland, potentially blowing up NATO—figuratively speaking—to acquire the island likely does not represent nearly as great a cost to Trump as the others involved might expect. 

Relations between Europe and the Trump administration have been heading toward that potential fork since he returned to office. To this point, Europe has mostly either given in to his demands or just tried to ignore him. However, if he continues to pursue Greenland, the latter approach will be off the table. 

So, which path will they choose?

However this story ends, it doesn’t seem like there’s a viable path back to the way things were before. In all likelihood, it’s been that way for a while now, but Greenland could very well be the point at which America’s relationship with Europe changes on a fundamental level. And, if that happens, no one really seems certain about what the world will look like when the dust settles.  

Spiritual application: How to count the cost of people

One of Christ’s most oft-quoted admonitions is to “count the cost” before taking on a task that may prove difficult to complete (Luke 14:28). The idea is often used to encourage people to be good stewards of their resources, but it should apply to how we evaluate our relationships as well. 

For all his confidence, there is no way that President Trump can know whether Greenland will be worth what it might end up costing. The financial side of it is a bit easier to measure, but the politics are less so.

There are valid reasons why America’s relationship with NATO—as it exists today—may not be a net benefit for the United States. But part of counting the cost is understanding that there is also value to predictability, and building your future around transactional relationships only works when you have more to offer than someone else. 

As we think about our own lives, it’s just as important to apply that principle to how we evaluate our relationships as well.

Most of us have had friends or family members at one time or another where the cost/benefit analysis of continuing that relationship didn’t really make sense. But while there is a certain value to knowing if the people in your life are a net positive or negative, God’s word doesn’t give us the option of evaluating people in the same way we might assess a car or a stock. 

It could be that he has intentionally brought difficult individuals into our lives to help us learn what it means to serve, or to shine even the faintest light on how he has every right to feel about us. After all, if God evaluated us in that way, I’m pretty sure Jesus would have stayed in heaven and we’d all be headed to hell. Praise the Lord that he doesn’t count our cost in the same way we do. 

So, the next time you encounter someone who makes you want to pull your proverbial hair out, take a minute to ask the Lord to help you see that person through God’s eyes. Ask him to help you evaluate that relationship by his standards rather than yours. And count the cost, knowing that it could very well be God’s will that, sometimes, it will not end up in your favor.

Do you have any relationships in need of a new analysis today? 

God is good

As protests in Iran have escalated over recent weeks, the government has sought to isolate its people by cutting off access to the internet and digital communications. However, one platform remains uniquely difficult to stop: satellite television. SAT-7, a Christian programming station, has continued to broadcast the gospel into Iran at a time when Iranians from all generations are desperate for the hope of Jesus. 

Kingdom impact:

As Joe Willey, who works with SAT-7, notes, “Younger people and even older people have questioned the harshness and severity of life under this regime. They will say, ‘Well, if this is religion, if this is God, I don’t want this. I’m oppressed.’” The freedom available in Jesus hits just a bit differently in that kind of context, and the Lord has opportunities to do some truly remarkable things among the Iranian people as a result. 

Prayer point:

As Willey notes, “The difficult thing is for believers in Iran right now to be salt and light. This is an opportunity, and it’s easy for me to say, but they have an opportunity to show the hope they have in Christ. . . . I honestly pray that a great awakening would happen in Iran.” Let’s join him in that prayer today. 

Lyndsey Koh at Mission Network News has more on the story