In recent months, President Donald Trump has revived an idea that initially sounds like a relic from the 19th century: the possibility of Greenland becoming part of the United States. To modern ears—especially those shaped by post–World War II norms—this proposal sounds strange, even reckless. Yet from a purely strategic perspective, the idea is not as irrational as it first appears.
Greenland sits astride the Arctic gateway between North America and Eurasia. As polar ice melts and great-power competition intensifies, the Arctic is no longer a frozen backwater but a developing strategic theater. Control of airspace, sea lanes, missile-warning systems, undersea cables, and critical minerals increasingly matters. From Washington’s viewpoint, Greenland is not about prestige or novelty; it is about geography.
Why Greenland Appeals to U.S. Strategists
If Greenland were to become a U.S. territory, America would gain several tangible advantages.
First, it would remove political constraints on U.S. military operations there. Today, American forces operate in Greenland by agreement with Denmark and the Greenlandic government. That arrangement works—but it depends on continued consent. Sovereignty would allow the United States to expand radar systems, ports, airfields, and space-tracking infrastructure without diplomatic friction or delay.
Second, it would permanently deny China and Russia strategic entry. China’s Arctic strategy relies not on overt military bases but on long-term economic footholds—research stations, mining investments, and infrastructure projects that later become leverage. U.S. sovereignty would close that door entirely. Russia, meanwhile, already treats the Arctic as a military frontier. Greenland would give the United States an unmatched vantage point over Russian submarine and missile activity.
Third, it would future-proof American Arctic power. Military sufficiency today does not guarantee security tomorrow. Technology, climate, and warfare evolve, and human planners instinctively seek permanence through geography and assets.
From a strategic planning standpoint, the logic is clear. Bases can be revoked. Treaties can be rewritten. Geography cannot be moved.
The Difficulties and Risks
Yet the obstacles to such a plan are immense.
Greenland is not an empty possession waiting to be acquired. It is home to a distinct people with their own language, culture, and parliament. Most Greenlanders do not aspire to trade Danish oversight for American oversight. Their dominant political aspiration is independence—standing as Greenland, not as someone else’s territory—reflecting the biblical reality that peoples seek to dwell according to their own identity and inheritance (Acts 17:26).
Denmark, for its part, has no appetite to sell territory in the modern era. While it once sold the Virgin Islands to the United States in 1917, today’s political environment is vastly different. Any transfer of sovereignty would require not only Danish agreement but clear Greenlandic consent, reminding us that rulers act within limits they do not always control (Daniel 2:21).
There are also risks for the United States itself. Acquiring Greenland would strain relations with allies, complicate NATO unity, and saddle Washington with enormous long-term costs—governance, infrastructure, social services, and environmental stewardship in one of the world’s harshest climates. Strategic gain does not come free, a truth Scripture repeatedly affirms regarding the true cost of ambition (see Luke 14:28).
But beyond these practical difficulties lies a deeper risk: the belief that security ultimately comes from geography and power.
A Biblical Warning from the Transjordan
Scripture offers a sobering parallel.
When Israel conquered the lands east of the Jordan River, the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh chose to settle there. The arrangement was lawful, negotiated, and strategically sensible, unwittingly serving as a buffer zone protecting the heartland west of the Jordan (Numbers 32:1–5; Deuteronomy 3:12–13).
Yet history records a tragic outcome. Those Transjordan tribes were the first to fall when foreign empires swept through the land (2 Kings 15:29). Their frontier position—once a strength—became a vulnerability.
That lesson should not be missed.
If Greenland were to become a U.S. territory, it would almost certainly serve as America’s Arctic frontier—its buffer and early-warning shield. And if the United States were to grow spiritually weak, morally corrupt, and ripe for judgment, Greenland would likely be among the first places to fall, just as exposed territories often are in biblical history (Isaiah 10:5–12).
Where Security Truly Comes From
The Bible is unambiguous on one point: nations do not secure themselves by land acquisition alone.
Scripture teaches that God determines the boundaries of nations, raises up kingdoms, and brings them down according to His purpose (Deuteronomy 32:8; Acts 17:26). He grants territory—and He removes it—sometimes as blessing, sometimes as judgment (Daniel 4:17).
This does not mean strategy is meaningless. Governments are responsible to act wisely within their calling. But it does mean that territorial expansion, military presence, and geopolitical maneuvering are at best secondary causes. Ultimate security belongs to God alone (Psalm 127:1).
A nation is secure not because it controls more land, but because it stands under God’s favor (Proverbs 14:34).
Strategic Instinct
President Trump’s Greenland proposal reflects an old, recognizably American strategic instinct: secure the frontier before it becomes contested. In historical terms, the idea is not radical. In modern political terms, it is extraordinarily difficult. And in biblical terms, it is insufficient.
Even if Greenland were someday to fly the American flag, it would not save a nation under judgment. Like the Transjordan territories of ancient Israel, it could become the first warning sign—not the last line of defense.
History, Scripture, and experience all point to the same conclusion:
national security does not ultimately come from acquiring territory, but from the God who grants and withdraws it according to His will (Psalm 33:16–19).
