Lawmakers Warm to Peaceful Push for Greenland as Trump Keeps Options Open

By Ginika Igboke

America’s territorial growth has often come through a mix of diplomacy and conflict. In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson dramatically expanded the young nation through the Louisiana Purchase. Decades later, President James K. Polk oversaw the acquisition of much of the American West following the Mexican–American War. Now, President Donald Trump has revived talk of expanding U.S. territory once again—this time by acquiring Greenland.

Trump has made clear that he views Greenland as strategically vital to U.S. national security, particularly as global competition intensifies in the Arctic. While he has left both peaceful and coercive options on the table, momentum on Capitol Hill appears to be building around a far less aggressive approach: buying the territory from Denmark.

That idea has attracted support even from lawmakers who are openly critical of the administration’s refusal to rule out military action.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who has objected to any suggestion of invading Greenland, nevertheless said recently that purchasing the massive Arctic island could make sense for the United States.

“There’d be great benefits to be under our defense umbrella, and also economic benefits to trade,” Paul told reporters. He pointed to the Louisiana Purchase and the acquisition of Alaska—both controversial in their time—as historical parallels. What critics once derided as reckless decisions, Paul noted, ultimately proved to be “big, huge successes” for the nation.

A similar view was expressed by Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), an occasional ally of Trump and Republicans. While firmly opposing any military intervention, Fetterman said a negotiated purchase would be the best outcome.

“Ideally, we purchase it,” he said on Jan. 7, adding that such a path may not currently be realistic.

Other lawmakers have echoed that emphasis on diplomacy. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said the administration is “not looking at doing a military operation” in Greenland. He acknowledged that the territory could offer significant strategic benefits to the United States but stressed that any effort would have to involve both Greenland and Denmark.

Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) also rejected the idea of annexation by force, while underscoring Greenland’s potential importance—particularly in countering Russian activity in the Arctic. “The U.S. has acquired land before,” Lawler noted, framing the discussion as part of a long American tradition rather than an unprecedented move.

Even some of the administration’s sharpest critics on the issue have stopped short of rejecting all peaceful avenues. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), a former House majority leader and co-chair of Congress’s Danish caucus, joined Rep. Blake Moore (R-Utah) in condemning what they called “sabre-rattling about annexing Greenland” as “needlessly dangerous.”

At the same time, Hoyer signaled that diplomacy does not end with an initial rejection. Denmark has consistently said Greenland is not for sale, he acknowledged—but that stance does not necessarily foreclose future talks.

“A rejection doesn’t mean I can’t come back,” Hoyer said, suggesting that negotiations could evolve if terms changed. “Are you sure? Look, we’ll give you $100 billion. Maybe that’s the right price.”

As debate continues, lawmakers across party lines appear increasingly aligned around one conclusion: while Greenland’s strategic value is widely recognized, expanding America’s Arctic reach—if it happens at all—should come through negotiation, not force.