Why Democracy Freezes Trump’s Greenland Dreams

America's anti-imperialist 18th century Constitution creates roadblocks to 21st century expansion

The Flag on Ice (picture credit me)

It has been a week, and newly sworn-in U.S. President Donald J. Trump (Republican) is serious about Greenland. According to the president’s thinking Greenland, the world’s largest island, holds vast untapped natural resources, including rare earth minerals, oil, natural gas, and valuable metals. However, despite its resource wealth, Greenland remains economically dependent on Danish subsidies, and Denmark has taken a cautious approach to developing its industries. In contrast, the new United States administration has shown persistent interest in Greenland for strategic military reasons and resource extraction. Given our greater economic power, technological expertise, and strategic motivations, the U.S. could likely exploit Greenland’s resources more aggressively than Denmark. However, domestic and international environmental concerns, infrastructure challenges, and local resistance could limit the effectiveness of American efforts, raising the question of whether Greenland would truly benefit from greater U.S. involvement or simply become a resource-rich dependency. All of this can be overcome in the hypothetical negotiations with Denmark, however. But the big problem is not with the president’s idea; it is the nature of the country he leads. Would Trump make Greenland a state? Well, to put this in context, let’s go back about a hundred years. And a bit more.

Before the Zimmerman Telegram, U.S. President Thomas Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) was worried about Germany. Well, let me explain a bit; first, what was the Telegram? Well, the Zimmermann Telegram and not the sinking of the RMS Lusitania was the direct cause of the United States entering World War One. Both were the result of British influence operations against American and German relations. The telegram was a secret diplomatic communication sent by Germany to Mexico, yes Mexico, on January 16, 1917, during World War I. The message, sent by German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann, proposed a military alliance between Germany and Mexico if the United States entered the war against Germany. In exchange, Germany promised to help Mexico regain lost territories in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. Historically, Mexico and the U.S. are rivals in part because the failed leadership in Mexico likes to blame their internal problems on the U.S. rather than the Mexican oligarchy. So, it makes sense for the Germans to try to tie the U.S. down with a Western Hemisphere war. Gotta slow down those Yanks crossing the Atlantic.

However, that did not work out for Germany. The British intercepted and decoded the telegram, then shared it with the Wilson Administration. I mean, of course, they would, but the worst part was when Germany admitted they did it after the U.S. publicly released the telegram on March 1, 1917, causing a surge in anti-German sentiment, as one would expect when country “A” is caught asking your rival neighbor to launch a full-on attack on you. You would think the Germans would lie and say the British made it up, but no, they confessed and sealed their fate. President Woodrow Wilson asked Congress to declare war on Germany. On April 6, 1917, the U.S. entered the Great War. What does this have to do with Greenland? Well, I'm glad you asked.

A few months before all this went down, the USA bought territory from Denmark. It bought the Danish West Indies because of Germany. The purchase of the Danish Virgin Islands bought the islands of St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix from Denmark for $25 million in gold. The agreement, known as the Treaty of the Danish West Indies, was signed on August 4, 1916, and the U.S. formally took possession of the islands on March 31, 1917, renaming them the U.S. Virgin Islands. Fearing that Germany might seize the islands during World War I and use them as a naval base in the Caribbean, President Wilson acted in accord with the Monroe Doctrine, which sought to limit European influence in the Americas. Denmark, facing economic challenges and recognizing the islands’ declining economic value, agreed to the sale.

They had formerly been primarily slavery islands of the Danish colonial empire. I joke with my students that Denmark is one of those countries that has done a good job keeping its involvement in the transatlantic slave trade under the radar. Denmark established a slave-based economy in the islands in the 17th and 18th centuries. Enslaved Africans were forced to work on sugar plantations, which were the economic backbone of the colony; the Danes made their cash from slave labor focused on sugar, but also cotton and rum production. The Danish Africa Company, later the Danish West India Company, just like the British and other better-known colonial enterprises, was supported by the government and participated in the triangular trade, transporting enslaved Africans from West Africa to the Caribbean. The Danes had slavery outposts on the coast of Ghana. And like the British Caribbean colonies, the enslaved Africans far outnumbered European settlers. So, given the demographics, the Danes used brutal repression to maintain control, which could provoke rebellions, as in 1733, which was met with more brutality by Denmark.

Lest the Danes claim moral superiority over the Americans, let us point out that they decided to end slavery in 1847 with a 12-year transition window, which would have brought them to 1859, just one year before the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. But slavery ended in the Danish Caribbean in 1848 because the Africans rebelled; they did not want to wait 12 years to be free —would you? — and Governor General Peter von Scholten was forced to give in and emancipate them all ahead of schedule; for his trouble, he was put on trial in Denmark. The Africans had freed themselves but remained under Danish rule. The liberated Africans, former slaves of Denmark, faced restricted freedom as Denmark tried to dodge the consequences of emancipation by forcing them into contracts with their former masters; however, they rebelled again in 1878, led by women freedom fighters called “queens” such as Mary Thomas in the Fireburn Labor Riot. The riot was defeated, and the queens were sentenced to prison terms to be served in Denmark. In the late 19th century Denmark began to change and take liberty more seriously, and started a period of democratization. But not for the islands. Denmark held a referendum on selling the islands to the U.S. in 1916, but only in Denmark itself the islanders were not asked. The result was:

Yes: 283,670 votes (64+%)

No: 157,596 votes (35+%)

The acquisition strengthened the power of the United States Navy in the region versus both the Germans and the Royal Navy. (Go us.)

After all of this, Denmark spent the 20th century developing a democratic conscience. And this gets to the problem for President Trump: the U.S. Virgin Islands have no voting representation in Congress and no electoral votes. They are not a state. Our Founding Fathers did not intend for the country to be an imperial power. Historically, the USA is expansionist, not imperialist, and this is, in fact, an important distinction. America is supposed to be a nation-state, not an empire. The Constitution was designed to incorporate new territories and transition them into states. Until they became states, Congress would govern them, but once admitted, they would have equal status with the original 13 states, including two Senators and proportional representation in the House of Representatives. Alaska, California, and Texas are equal members of the Union, equal to Virginia, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. That is just as our forefathers intended—a national federation.

However, territories like Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands do not fit this system. Unlike past territories that became states, these remain permanent U.S. holdings without full representation, making them imperial possessions rather than democratic members of the Union.

The unincorporated territories acquired in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (e.g., Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands) were never intended to become states. Instead, they were retained for strategic reasons, with residents denied full constitutional rights to representation. This system, rationalized by the Insular Cases, allows the U.S. to govern these areas without granting them full participation in the Union. The original Insular Cases (1901) were a series of U.S. Supreme Court rulings that determined the constitutional status of territories acquired after the Spanish-American War (Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, and later, other U.S. territories like the U.S. Virgin Islands). SCOTUS formalized the concept of "unincorporated territories," meaning these areas belong to the U.S. but are not fully part of it. SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution does not fully apply to these territories unless Congress explicitly extends rights and justified governing territories without granting full citizenship rights or a guaranteed path into the Union, leading to their subordinate political status. Congress cannot extend voting representation without granting statehood or amending the Constitution. This did not bother Denmark in 1916. They were no better than the U.S.

Denmark, Norway, and Sweden came from the Norse cultures that 1,000 years ago were known for warring, Viking, and exploring. They first came to Greenland prior to the year AD1000. The original Norse presence goes back as far as the current Inuit Greenlanders. Norway first ruled Greenland; the communities declined, then Denmark recolonized the area, then Norway entered into a personal union with the Danish crown before being forcibly taken and given to Sweden after agreements with the anti-Napoleon coalition led by Russia and Britain. That’s 800 years of history ran through really quickly. Denmark was a loyal ally of Emperor Napoleon the Great, and Norway was taken from it by his enemies. In the two centuries since, Denmark has changed into a model democratic society.

Greenland lies in the Arctic region, closer to North America than Europe, and though mostly linked to Norway, it was a colony of Denmark–Norway for centuries. When the Danish-Norwegian union was broken by British-backed Swedish aggression in the 1814 Treaty of Kiel, Greenland was officially transferred to full Danish control. At the time Danish government was absolutist, with the majority of power in the hands of the king, which began to change after the year of European revolutions in 1848; by 1849, Denmark had a 19th-century bicameral parliament. But the overseas territories like Greenland were excluded from these changes. Things really began to change after World War Two forced additional changes in societal thinking. In 1953, Denmark ended Greenland’s colonial status and integrated it into the Danish state, granting it parliamentary representation in Copenhagen. Also, in 1953, Denmark abolished its upper house, the Landsting, and became a unicameral democratic parliament. A generation later, in 1979, Denmark granted the Greenlanders home rule, allowing Greenland to administer itself while Denmark retained control over foreign policy, defense, and currency. The relationship is unequal because Greenland has a population of less than 60,000, and European Denmark has a population of almost 6 million. So in the parliament, the Folketing, out of 179 seats, Greenland gets two. The Danish Realm — which I prefer because it is cooler — or the Kingdom of Denmark is the name for the state that includes Greenland, the Faroe Islands, which also get two votes in parliament, and metropolitan or European Denmark, i.e., the land you probably think of when you hear the name “Denmark.” Unequal but still democratic, the other parts of the realm get a vote, and they get autonomy. This matters in post-World War Two Danish society. Democracy matters.

Economically, Greenland is supported by Denmark; it is highly dependent, which should give MAGA pause. Despite projections regarding mineral and energy wealth, Greenland’s geographic and environmental challenges, such as its harsh Arctic climate, lack of infrastructure, and very small workforce, have hindered large-scale extraction. You would have to move American workers there. Denmark has approached resource development cautiously, prioritizing environmental protection and local governance over aggressive exploitation. The U.S., with its stronger economic and military interests in the Arctic, might take a different approach. America already operates Thule Air Base in Greenland, and with increasing global competition in the Arctic, especially with China, and while our relationship with Russia remains unclear in the new Trump Administration, Congress might find it has strong incentives to invest in Greenland’s development. But Americans might have huge upfront starter costs, and U.S. corporations have in recent years tried schemes to shift these burdens to U.S. taxpayers that might provoke a MAGA revolt, especially if this is not interpreted as America First but rather Corporations First. To be clear, it is because Greenland lacks these things already that a case could be made to front the costs. Greenland does not have the roads, ports, energy grids, and skilled workforce needed for large-scale resource extraction. The U.S., whether it's the federal government, the private sector, or a combination, would need to make massive infrastructure investments before large-scale operations could begin. Why should the U.S. want a new territory that depends on $500M of subsidies from Denmark annually and which accounts for one-fifth of Greenland’s GDP and 50% of all government spending in Greenland?

On the other hand, as Trump has argued, the U.S. — the same country with $30 trillion in debt — can bear the Greenland subsidy burden, so Denmark should sell to get it off their ledger. Let’s make a deal, says the president. However, that brings us back to how Danes feel about democracy in the 21st century. They are a proud democratic people. As it is, unless it is made a state, the U.S. cannot offer Greenland federal representation unless it puts it in the treaty for Denmark to have a special status in the House that Puerto Rico lacks, or Trump asks Congress and the states to amend the Constitution. Would Republicans want 50,000 Greenlanders electing two new members of the United States Senate? Statehood is likely the condition Denmark would insist on if the price was right. Danish leaders are uneasy that the U.S. Virgin Islands do not have democratic representation in Congress after 100 years. They are not going to want to do that to Greenland. It would violate the core of how modern Danes see themselves. Democracy, not finances, is what will chill Trump’s dreams.