Strength Is Found by Asking, Not Taking

President Donald Trump's renewed interest in acquiring Greenland has sparked predictable reactions — some cheer the boldness, others dismiss it as provocation.

But stripped of headlines and hot takes, the issue deserves something far more serious than knee-jerk applause or reflexive outrage.

Greenland is not a punchline. It is a strategic question with real consequences, and how the United States pursues its interests there could either strengthen American leadership or severely weaken it.

There is no question that Greenland matters.

The Arctic is no longer a distant frontier; it is becoming a central theater of global competition.

Melting ice has opened shipping routes, rare earth minerals are increasingly valuable, and missile defense positioning in the far north carries enormous strategic weight.

China and Russia both understand this.

Moscow has aggressively militarized the Arctic, while Beijing — despite not being an Arctic nation — has declared itself a "near-Arctic power" and invested heavily in influence across the region.

America cannot afford to ignore that reality.

But recognizing Greenland's importance is not the same as justifying reckless action.

Greenland is part of the Kingdom of Denmark, a sovereign nation and a NATO ally.

That fact alone should give pause to anyone suggesting the United States could simply take possession of the island if negotiations fail. A recent news report covers actions President Trump may take if his quest for Greenland is hampered. 

Without Denmark's consent, any attempt to acquire Greenland would be viewed globally not as a transaction, but as forced annexation — or worse, conquest.

That distinction matters.

It would shatter the moral framework the United States relies on when confronting territorial aggression by adversaries.

At a time when Washington condemns Russia for invading Ukraine and warns about China's designs on Taiwan, how could the U.S. credibly defend a move against an allied nation’s territory? The contradiction would be impossible to ignore, and our rivals would exploit it immediately.

Even more dangerous is what such a move would mean for NATO.

The alliance is already under strain, wrestling with burden-sharing, strategic priorities, and political cohesion. NATO survives on trust — trust that members will respect one another's sovereignty and act collectively when threatened.

If one NATO member coerces another over territory, that trust collapses.

The alliance would not simply be damaged; it would be fundamentally undermined.

That outcome would be a strategic gift to both China and Russia.

Neither needs to defeat NATO militarily if it can be fractured politically from within.

Alienating Denmark over Greenland would do precisely that, weakening the very alliance structure that has preserved peace and deterred aggression for decades.

None of this means the United States should abandon its interests in Greenland.

On the contrary, it means those interests must be pursued intelligently.

There is a wide spectrum between indifference and coercion.

Diplomatic engagement expanded basing rights, joint security arrangements, investment partnerships, and long-term leasing agreements are all viable options that protect American interests without torching alliances.

Strength is not measured by how hard you push, but by how effectively you secure outcomes without destabilizing the system around you.

Some argue that NATO itself is outdated or unreliable, and that America should act unilaterally when its interests are at stake.

There is a legitimate debate to be had about NATO's future, burden-sharing, and reform.

But detonating the alliance through an unnecessary confrontation with Denmark is not reform — it's sabotage. If the United States intends to rethink NATO, it should do so deliberately and strategically, not by accident through an Arctic land grab.

The larger threat facing America today is not Denmark. It's the coordinated challenge posed by China and Russia across multiple domains — military, economic, technological, and globally. Every strategic decision should be evaluated against that reality.

—Does it strengthen alliances or weaken them?

—Does it deter adversaries or embolden them?

A forced move on Greenland would fail that test.

America's credibility, leadership, and long-term security depend on consistency.

We can't argue that borders matter when violated by enemies but become negotiable when inconvenient for us. That double standard would erode everything the United States claims to stand for, both to allies and to the world.

If Greenland is truly vital to American security, then the solution is clear:

—Negotiate.

—Ask, don’t take.

—Build agreements that serve both nations' interests.

—Reinforce alliances rather than fracture them.

—Project strength through strategy, not impulse.

The Arctic will shape the next generation of global power politics.

How the United States handles Greenland will signal whether America intends to lead with foresight — or stumble into self-inflicted strategic damage at the worst possible moment.

Jim Renacci is a former U.S. Congressman, businessman, and conservative leader dedicated to putting America first.