Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has thrown cold water on the idea of a U.S. military seizure of Greenland, calling it far from any practical agenda.
Talk of using American forces to claim the icy territory is "not under serious consideration," Thune told reporters, as the Trump administration sharpens its foreign policy edge in the Arctic, according to Newsmax.
Thune waved off the notion with a sharp quip, saying, "I think that's probably getting the cart ahead of the horse." Such saber-rattling feels like a distraction when diplomacy with allies like Denmark, who oversee Greenland's defense, could yield better results.
Greenland, a self-governing slice of Denmark, sits as a critical chess piece between North America and Europe. Its ice-covered expanse hosts Pituffik Space Base, a vital U.S. installation for missile alerts and space monitoring.
Thune, reflecting on a bipartisan trip to Denmark last year, noted how fiercely Danish leaders guard their connection to the territory. "They're very passionate about Greenland," he remarked, a reminder that any U.S. move must respect allied ties.
While military action is off the table, Thune sees room for a smarter play through economic and strategic partnerships. Negotiations involving both Denmark and Greenland's residents could align with national security goals without firing a shot.
White House adviser Stephen Miller recently fanned the flames, claiming on television that Greenland "should have" been American territory. His bold assertion that "nobody's going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland" begs a hard question: why risk alienating allies with such bravado?
Miller's words clash with the reality of Denmark's firm stance and Greenland's own rejection of closer U.S. control. Forcing the issue with tough talk ignores the shared security interests already in place through NATO and existing agreements.
President Donald Trump has long eyed Greenland as essential to American defense, repeatedly pushing for deeper ties. Yet, both Greenlandic and Danish leaders have consistently pushed back, signaling that sovereignty isn't up for grabs.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., drew a clear boundary, stating, "Greenland's a different deal" compared to recent U.S. actions in Venezuela. Painting Greenland as a parallel to regime-change operations muddies the waters when the focus should be on countering Russian and Chinese moves in the Arctic.
Graham emphasized that allies welcome a stronger U.S. presence in the region to balance growing threats. Legal and political frameworks, not military might, should guide any American investment in Greenland's infrastructure or economy.
Denmark has already stepped up its Arctic defense budget and expanded U.S. military access on its soil. These moves show a willingness to collaborate, rendering any talk of forced control both unnecessary and shortsighted.
Thune's vision leans on mutual agreements, not unilateral grabs, to secure U.S. interests in the Arctic. "If there's something there that could be mutually worked out, obviously it's of interest to national security," he said, pointing to a path of reason over recklessness.
The broader backdrop of Trump's second-term foreign policy, including the Venezuela operation to remove Nicolas Maduro, shows a penchant for decisive action. Yet, Greenland demands a different playbook, one that respects alliances rather than tests them.
Critical minerals and shipping routes in the Arctic are worth protecting, but not at the cost of trust with partners like Denmark. A diplomatic push, grounded in shared goals, stands a better chance of keeping the region stable against rival powers.