John Fetterman, the Pennsylvania Democrat senator, has thrown his weight behind a surprising plan from the Trump administration to acquire Greenland.
Fetterman’s stance on this unusual policy came to light through a post on X, where he echoed Republican sentiments, as reported by The Daily Beast. He framed the move as a strategic necessity for the United States.
Fetterman wrote, “I believe Greenland has massive strategic benefits for the United States.” His caveat that “America is not a bully” rings hollow when the conversation veers so close to imperial ambition, even if dressed up as a business deal.
Fetterman elaborated in his post, suggesting a purchase akin to historical deals like Alaska or the Louisiana Purchase. Such nostalgia for territorial expansion sidesteps the messy reality of sovereignty and international norms in today’s geopolitics.
He also noted, “Acquiring Greenland is a many decades old conversation.” Yet, dusting off old ideas doesn’t automatically make them wise or welcome, especially when Greenland’s autonomy under Denmark is barely acknowledged in this rhetoric.
The Trump administration, fresh off a clandestine military operation in Venezuela that saw the abduction of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, is now eyeing Greenland. President Trump himself declared on Air Force One on Sunday that the territory is vital “from the standpoint of national security.”
The White House reinforced this position in a statement to Reuters, calling the acquisition a “national security priority.” That label feels like a convenient catch-all to justify overreaching foreign policy, especially when military options remain on the table.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio clarified on Monday that the administration prefers a purchase over invasion. Still, his upcoming meeting with Danish officials suggests this isn’t a casual idea but a calculated push that could strain alliances.
Rubio wasn’t on the hill on January 7 to discuss Greenland specifically, yet he confirmed the president’s long-standing intent to buy the territory. When leaders dodge direct accountability while hinting at military backup, it’s hard to see this as anything but a power play.
Fetterman’s alignment with Trump on this issue isn’t his first break from Democratic ranks. His friendliness with MAGA figures, including a cozy dinner with Steve Bannon in June and describing Trump as “kind and cordial” after a Mar-a-Lago meeting last year, paints a pattern of crossing lines many in his party find troubling.
Even his voting record shows divergence, as one of only eight lawmakers to vote against party lines to end a government shutdown in November. While independence can be admirable, consistently siding with opponents on divisive issues risks alienating the very base that elected him.
Criticism of the Greenland plan isn’t limited to Democrats, with GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski calling the concept “very, very unsettling.” Her unease, shared by Senator Susan Collins who opposes both military and financial takeover attempts, highlights how this policy lacks broad support even among conservatives.
Collins expressed genuine surprise at the persistence of this idea within the Trump administration. Her reaction underscores a broader concern that such aggressive territorial ambitions could undermine America’s standing as a diplomatic leader.
Fetterman’s office has remained silent on requests for further comment, leaving his full reasoning unclear. This silence only fuels speculation about whether his support stems from genuine strategic belief or a deeper alignment with Trump’s broader agenda.
Ultimately, the pursuit of Greenland, whether through purchase or pressure, raises serious questions about national priorities and international respect. While securing strategic advantages is crucial, steamrolling over autonomy and alliances to achieve them feels like a step backward from principled leadership.