Congress Divided as Trump Administration Revives Talk of Acquiring Greenland

By Ginika Igboke

Following the capture of Venezuela’s former leader Nicolás Maduro, the Trump administration has renewed discussion about acquiring Greenland, a Danish territory President Donald Trump has repeatedly described as strategically vital to U.S. national security. While interest in Greenland has drawn attention across Washington, lawmakers are sharply divided over how—if at all—the United States should pursue such a move.

On Capitol Hill, there is significantly more support for diplomatic or economic approaches than for any suggestion of military force. Although administration officials have emphasized interest in purchasing the world’s largest island, Trump and his advisers have not fully ruled out coercive options. That stance has prompted criticism from European NATO allies, Democrats, and a number of Republicans.

Even some lawmakers skeptical of the administration’s recent foreign policy actions have expressed openness to a peaceful acquisition. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a cosponsor of a war powers resolution related to Venezuela, said on Jan. 7 that talk of military intervention should be rejected—but added that Greenland itself could be a worthwhile purchase.

“There’d be great benefits to being under our defense umbrella, and also economic benefits to trade,” Paul said during a briefing alongside Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.). He pointed to historical precedents, noting that both the Louisiana Purchase and the acquisition of Alaska proved enormously beneficial to the United States.

Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), who has at times broken with his party, questioned the practicality of invading a territory as vast as Greenland but acknowledged its strategic importance, particularly in the Arctic region.

“Ideally, we purchase it,” Fetterman said, adding that such an outcome may not be realistic under current conditions.

Administration Signals Broad Strategic Interest

The renewed debate followed closed-door briefings on Venezuela by senior administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Rubio told reporters that Trump’s interest in Greenland is neither new nor unprecedented, noting that President Harry Truman once sought to acquire the territory. He also defended the administration’s refusal to take any options off the table.

“If the president identifies a threat to the national security of the United States, every president retains the option to address it through military means,” Rubio said, emphasizing that his comments applied broadly and were not limited to Greenland.

Earlier the same day, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed that a potential Greenland purchase is “actively being discussed” by Trump and his national security team. Senior White House adviser Stephen Miller added fuel to the controversy when he remarked that “nobody is going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.”

Those comments drew a swift response from Europe. In a joint statement issued Jan. 6, leaders from Greenland, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom emphasized that decisions about Greenland rest solely with Denmark and the territory itself.

Lawmakers Urge Caution

Several U.S. lawmakers echoed concerns about the administration’s rhetoric. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) warned that Washington should avoid threatening a peaceful allied nation where the United States already maintains a military presence.

Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Blake Moore (R-Utah), co-chairs of the Congressional Friends of Denmark Caucus, described talk of annexation as “needlessly dangerous.” They noted that the United States already enjoys broad access to Greenland through its alliance with Denmark, including the ability to expand military assets as needed.

The U.S. military presence in Greenland includes Pituffik Space Base—formerly Thule Air Base—an Arctic installation that has hosted American forces since World War II. Vice President JD Vance visited the base in March 2025.

Despite the criticism, some Republicans remain enthusiastic about deepening ties with Greenland. Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) said the United States should be proactive in pursuing closer relations with the territory, while dismissing the notion that military annexation is under serious consideration.

Others emphasized that any acquisition would need to be consensual. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said Greenland would be strategically valuable but stressed that discussions should involve both Denmark and Greenland directly. “We’re not looking at doing a military operation,” he said.

Alternative Paths to Partnership

Lawmakers have floated options short of outright purchase or annexation. Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) highlighted Greenland’s importance to Arctic security and NATO defense, particularly in countering Russian influence. He also suggested that a Compact of Free Association—similar to agreements the United States has with several Pacific island nations—could be a viable alternative.

Such a compact could allow the United States to expand its military presence while providing economic support, without stripping Greenland of self-governance. Greenland has had a clearer legal pathway to independence from Denmark since the 2009 Self-Government Act.

“If the people in Greenland decided they wanted some type of relationship with the United States, great,” Lawler said.

Still, skepticism remains. Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) downplayed the likelihood of annexation, suggesting that the administration’s rhetoric may be more strategic posturing than policy.

As debate continues, lawmakers from both parties appear united on one point: while Greenland’s strategic value is widely recognized, any effort to bring it closer into the U.S. orbit must avoid coercion and respect longstanding alliances.